Motor Vehicle Administration v. Sanner, 73 A.3d 214

On May 12, 2007, Jerry Dale Sanner was the driver of one vehicle in a two-vehicle collision in Westminster, Maryland; Trooper Brian Clinton responded and detected a "strong odor of alcoholic beverage" on Sanner's breath and person.
Trooper Clinton arrested Sanner for driving under the influence, advised him via the MVA DR-15 form, and Sanner consented to a blood test; lab results showed a BAC of 0.22.
Trooper Clinton completed an MVA DR-15A certification stating reasonable grounds existed (noting the accident, odor of alcohol, and the .22 result); MVA suspended Sanner's license for 90 days and he requested an administrative hearing.
At the OAH hearing the ALJ admitted documentary evidence (DR-15A, DR-15, MSP-33) but Trooper Clinton did not appear; the ALJ found the documents sufficient and upheld the suspension after Sanner declined to present testimony or proffer contradicting evidence.
The Circuit Court for Carroll County reversed, holding the record lacked sufficient evidence that the accident was Sanner’s fault and that odor alone was insufficient to infer impairment; MVA petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding that the odor of alcohol combined with the fact Sanner was the driver involved in an accident provided reasonable grounds to request a chemical test and that the ALJ’s reliance on documentary evidence was not arbitrary or capricious.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an officer’s certification that a strong odor of alcohol was present on a crash-involved driver constitutes "reasonable grounds" to request a chemical test under §16-205.1(b)(2).	MVA: Odor of alcohol plus the driver’s involvement in an accident supplies reasonable articulable suspicion to request testing.	Sanner: Odor alone is insufficient; absent proof the accident was his fault, no inference of impairment can be drawn.	Yes — Odor of alcohol combined with undisputed fact that respondent was the driver in an accident meets the "reasonable grounds" (reasonable articulable suspicion) standard.
Whether the ALJ acted arbitrarily or capriciously by deciding based on documentary evidence after the officer failed to appear.	MVA: ALJ permissibly considered admitted documents and explained subpoena would not be dispositive; decision supported by record.	Sanner: ALJ previously said she needed the officer’s testimony, so ruling without it was arbitrary.	No — ALJ’s prior statements were ambiguous; she properly exercised discretion and relied on admitted exhibits when respondent declined to proffer contradicting evidence.

Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Richards, 356 Md. 356 (establishes that probable cause is not required; only reasonable grounds necessary under §16-205.1)
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shepard, 399 Md. 241 (defines "reasonable grounds" as reasonable articulable suspicion)
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Illiano, 390 Md. 265 (officer interactions based on various traffic or equipment violations can justify further investigation/testing)
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Atterbeary, 368 Md. 480 (strong odor plus observable signs and failed field tests can supply reasonable grounds)
Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1300 v. Mass Transit Admin., 305 Md. 380 (a sufficiently strong odor of alcohol can furnish reasonable grounds to request chemical testing)