82 A.3d 179
Md.2013Background
- This case questions whether a moderate odor of alcohol alone provides reasonable grounds to suspect DUI and to request an alcohol content test under Md. Code Transportation Article § 16-205.1(b)(2).
- Trooper Hall stopped Spies for a traffic control device violation and detected a moderate odor of alcohol on Spies’s breath.
- Spies refused a field sobriety test and was arrested, then declined a blood alcohol content test, leading to a 120-day license suspension for a first offense.
- An administrative show-cause hearing followed, where the ALJ affirmed the suspension based on totality of the circumstances.
- The circuit court reversed, concluding the record lacked substantial evidence of reasonable grounds, and the MVA sought appellate review, which this Court granted to decide on the sufficiency of a moderate odor as reasonable grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a moderate odor of alcohol alone constitutes reasonable grounds | MVA argues odor alone suffices under § 16-205.1 | Spies argues odor alone is insufficient without more impairing indicators | Yes; moderate odor alone can be reasonable grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Sanner, 434 Md. 20 (Md. 2013) (strong odor plus other signs can establish reasonable grounds)
- Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shea, 415 Md. 1 (Md. 2010) (low quantum of suspicion; moderate odor may suffice for reasonable grounds)
- Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Richards, 356 Md. 356 (Md. 1999) (administrative per se objectives; implied consent purpose)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1300 v. Mass Transit Admin., 305 Md. 380 (Md. 1986) (odor of alcohol can furnish reasonable grounds for testing)
- Singleton v. Roman, 195 Md. 241 (Md. 1950) (very slight odor with no other signs historically questioned)