MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION v. Robert Allen KRAFFT; Motor Vehicle Administration v. Paul Mcguire Styslinger
Nos. 52, 53, Sept. Term, 2016
Court of Appeals of Maryland
April 21, 2017
158 A.3d 539 | 452 Md. 589
Argued by M. Dean Jenkins (Ayres, Jenkins, Gordy & Almand, P.A., Ocean City, MD), on brief, for Respondent in No. 52, Sept. Term, 2016.
Argued by Neil I. Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Glen Burnie, MD), on brief, for Petitioner in No. 53, Sept. Term, 2016.
Argued by Jeffrey L. Shelton (Rowe, Weinstein & Sohn PLLC of Rockville, MD) on brief, for Respondent in No. 53, Sept. Term, 2016.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, and Getty, JJ.
McDonald, J.
As part of the effort to detect drunk drivers and keep them off the State‘s roadways, the General Assembly has enacted a statute known as “the implied consent, administrative per se law.”1 That law authorizes a law enforcement officer who believes that an individual has been driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired by alcohol to ask the individual to take a breath test for blood alcohol concentration. If the individual refuses, the individual‘s driving privileges in Maryland are automatically suspended for a time period specified in the statute.
The law allows an individual whose driving privileges are suspended under the implied consent, administrative per se law to challenge the suspension at an administrative hearing. The statute limits the issues that may be contested at such a hearing. In a test refusal case, those issues ordinarily are: (1) whether the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the individual was driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired, (2) whether there was evidence of alcohol use by the individual, (3) whether the officer properly advised the individual in accordance with the statute when requesting the breath test, and (4) whether the individual refused the test.
These two cases concern administrative hearings in test refusal cases. In each case, the administrative law judge (“ALJ“) overturned the suspension on the ground that, while it was undisputed that the individual was under the influence of alcohol when the individual was detained by a law enforcement officer, it was not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individual had actually been driving (or attempting to drive) at that time.
We hold that, in a test refusal case, there is no requirement that the Motor Vehicle Administration (“MVA“) prove that the individual was actually driving (or attempting to drive) while under the influence
I
Background
A. The Implied Consent, Administrative Per Se Law
Every state has enacted some form of an implied consent law as part of its strategy to combat drunk driving. See Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1566, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013). The Maryland implied consent, administrative per se law appears in Maryland Code, Transportation Article (“TR“),
Implied Consent. As to implied consent, the statute provides that anyone who drives (or attempts to drive) a motor vehicle in Maryland “is deemed to have consented” to take a breath test to determine blood alcohol concentration “if the person should be detained on suspicion of driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol.”
Administrative Per Se. At the time of the events underlying these cases, a refusal to take the test resulted in an automatic administrative license suspension of 120 days for the first such refusal, and in a suspension of one year for a second or subsequent test refusal.
Thus, the statute provides an incentive to take the test, at least in terms of the potential administrative sanction.7 The automatic suspension for a test refusal, and the greater sanction compared to an adverse test result, are designed to encourage drivers to take the breath test, so that impaired drivers may be detected and removed from the roadways in the interest of safety. Motor Vehicle Administration v. Deering, 438 Md. 611, 616, 92 A.3d 495 (2014).
Procedure and Appeal. Once a law enforcement officer has detained a suspected drunk driver, the officer is to advise the detainee, among other things, of the possible administrative sanctions for a refusal to take the breath test and for test results that show a blood alcohol concentration above certain levels.
If the individual refuses to take the test or fails the test, the officer is to serve an order of suspension on the individual, confiscate his or her license, and issue a temporary license that may be used for a maximum of 45 days or until the individual‘s license is formally suspended after a license suspension hearing.
If the individual requests an administrative hearing to contest the suspension, it is to be conducted under the contested case provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act.
At the conclusion of the administrative hearing, if the ALJ is persuaded that the criteria for a suspension under the implied consent, administrative per se law are satisfied, the ALJ is to uphold the license suspension.
Either party may seek judicial review pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act.
The Predicate. A law enforcement officer has no authority to arbitrarily request an individual—even one who is driving a car—to take a breath test or face legal consequences. As the above outline of the statute indicates, there is a predicate for a test request that triggers the operation of the implied consent, administrative per se law: the law enforcement officer must have detained the individual upon a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. Thus, a suspension for a test refusal is to be upheld only if the law enforcement officer who detained the suspected drunk driver had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the individual was driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired by alcohol.
These cases concern application of that predicate.
B. Facts and Proceedings
1. MVA v. Styslinger
Circumstances of Test Refusal
The essential facts are undisputed. On March 28, 2015, at approximately 1:10 a.m., Officer Alex Pockett of the Gaithersburg City Police Department responded to a report that a driver was slumped over his steering wheel at a location on Washington Boulevard in Gaithersburg. Upon his arrival, Officer Pockett found Paul M. Styslinger asleep in the driver‘s seat with
Officer Pockett asked Mr. Styslinger to perform some standard field sobriety tests, which Mr. Styslinger was unable to do to the officer‘s satisfaction. Officer Pockett then detained Mr. Styslinger and transported him to the Gaithersburg police station for further investigation.
At the police station, Officer Pockett advised Mr. Styslinger of his rights by reading him the DR-15 form. He asked Mr. Styslinger if he was willing to undergo a blood alcohol concentration test. Mr. Styslinger refused to submit to a test. Officer Pockett confiscated Mr. Styslinger‘s driver‘s license, and issued an order of suspension together with a temporary license on the DR-15A form. Mr. Styslinger made a timely request for an administrative hearing concerning the suspension.
The Administrative Hearing
The administrative hearing was conducted by an ALJ on July 31, 2015. As is typically the case, the MVA‘s evidence consisted entirely of documents, including the forms related to Mr. Styslinger‘s encounter with Officer Pockett on March 28, 2015. Among the documents submitted were the DR-15A form (Officer‘s Certification and Order of Suspension) and the DR-15 form (Advice of Rights), which documented Mr. Styslinger‘s test refusal and which had been signed by both the officer and Mr. Styslinger. On the DR-15A form, Officer Pockett stated under penalty of perjury that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Styslinger had been driving (or attempting to drive) while under the influence of alcohol and briefly summarized his encounter with Mr. Styslinger that evening. At the hearing the ALJ also accessed Mr. Styslinger‘s driving record, which reflected a prior test refusal and suspension 15 years earlier.
After the MVA records were admitted in evidence, Mr. Styslinger presented his case through the testimony of himself and Alisa Cottone, with whom he lived and with whom he had a child. Mr. Styslinger admitted that he had parked his car before visiting a gym and drinking at two bars that evening, but denied that he had attempted to drive after doing so. He said that he had contacted the Uber car service for a ride home and was waiting in his car with the motor running in order to stay warm when he fell asleep until he was wakened by the officer. There was no direct evidence from Mr. Styslinger‘s phone records or Uber documenting that he had contacted Uber. However, Ms. Cottone testified that he had called her that night and told her that he was going to use Uber to get home.9
At the conclusion of Mr. Styslinger‘s evidence, his counsel asked the ALJ to take no action, arguing that there was no evidence that Mr. Styslinger had driven or attempted to drive his car while impaired.10 The ALJ was unpersuaded at
Ultimately, Officer Pockett did not testify in person and, at a continuation of the hearing on November 12, 2015, the ALJ rendered a decision based on the evidence previously adduced.11 At that time, the ALJ took no action on the suspension. The ALJ explained his decision as follows. He first found that Officer Pockett “had reasonable grounds to believe that [Mr. Styslinger] was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol” based on the officer‘s report that he found Mr. Styslinger asleep in his car with the motor running, that Mr. Styslinger‘s breath smelled of alcohol, and that Mr. Styslinger failed the field sobriety tests. The ALJ also found that Officer Pockett had properly advised Mr. Styslinger of the potential administrative sanctions when he requested Mr. Styslinger to take a breath test and that Mr. Styslinger had refused to submit to the test.
However, the ALJ decided that no action was the appropriate disposition because “the MVA has not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence [that Mr. Styslinger] drove or attempted to drive.” In making that finding, the ALJ referred to the testimony of Mr. Styslinger that he was in the car only for purposes of shelter and the testimony of both Mr. Styslinger and Ms. Cottone that he had contacted Uber for a ride home.12 The ALJ characterized his decision as a “close call,” given that the car engine was running at the time of the discovery of Mr. Styslinger by the officer. On the OAH form for such hearings, the ALJ included written “Findings of Facts” consistent with his oral decision.13
The Circuit Court Ruling
The MVA sought judicial review of the ALJ‘s decision in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The MVA argued that it need only show that Officer Pockett had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Styslinger was driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired and need not show that Mr. Styslinger had actually done so in order to support an administrative license suspension in a test refusal case. After conducting a hearing, the Circuit Court affirmed the ALJ‘s decision. The court acknowledged that the statute limited
We subsequently granted the MVA‘s petition for a writ of certiorari to review whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard in this case.
2. MVA v. Krafft
Circumstances of Test Refusal
On October 10, 2015, at approximately 9:14 p.m., Trooper John Dize of the Maryland State Police responded to a report of an accident in front of a residential address in Princess Anne in Somerset County. Upon his arrival, Trooper Dize found an empty vehicle with a Maryland license plate. He ran the registration record of the vehicle and learned that it was registered to Mr. Krafft, who resided at that address.
Trooper Dize approached the house and observed that the door was open with Mr. Krafft “passed out on his couch.” Trooper Dize began to question Mr. Krafft, who could barely stand up. Trooper Dize also noted that Mr. Krafft had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, and red and glassy eyes. During their conversation, Mr. Krafft admitted to Trooper Dize that he had been drinking, and Trooper Dize asked him to take a breath test for blood alcohol concentration. Mr. Krafft was provided with the DR-15 form (Advice of Rights) and refused the requested breath test for blood alcohol concentration. Trooper Dize then confiscated Mr. Krafft‘s license and completed the DR-15A form (Officer‘s Certification and Order of Suspension), which Mr. Krafft declined to sign.
The Administrative Hearing
Mr. Krafft requested an administrative hearing concerning the suspension. At the hearing on February 10, 2016, the ALJ accepted documents submitted by the MVA in support of the suspension—in particular, Mr. Krafft‘s driving record, the DR-15 form and the DR-15A form. Mr. Krafft did not testify or challenge the substance of Trooper Dize‘s description of the events of that evening.
Mr. Krafft‘s lawyer argued that the MVA documents and, in particular, the trooper‘s statement of reasonable grounds, were insufficient to support the suspension. He argued that, even if there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Krafft was impaired or under the influence of alcohol, Trooper Dize had not set forth reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Krafft was driving (or attempting to drive) while he was in that condition.
The ALJ stated at the hearing that she agreed that the Officer‘s Certification provided evidence that Mr. Krafft had consumed alcohol that evening. However, she believed that it was insufficient to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that Mr. Krafft had been driving. The ALJ stated:
Despite the vehicle being owned by Mr. Krafft, based on the information in this Certification it could have been somebody else driving. It could have been Mr. Krafft driving before he consumed alcohol. I just can‘t conclude that the preponderance of the evidence establishes the MVA‘s case and because of that I‘m going to take no action.
The ALJ documented her decision on the OAH form as follows. In the block concerning whether Trooper Dize “had reasonable grounds to believe” that the Mr. Krafft was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence or impaired by alcohol, she entered “n/a.” In the block concerning whether there was evidence of the use of alcohol, she also entered “n/a.” In response to
The Circuit Court Ruling
The MVA sought judicial review of the ALJ‘s decision in the Circuit Court for Somerset County. After conducting a hearing, the Circuit Court ruled from the bench and affirmed the ALJ‘s decision on the grounds that there was no error of law and that the court was not persuaded that Mr. Krafft had been driving.
We subsequently granted the MVA‘s petition for a writ of certiorari to review whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard in this case.
II
Discussion
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing a decision of an administrative agency, we directly evaluate that decision under the same standard of review as a circuit court. Motor Vehicle Administration v. Shea, 415 Md. 1, 15, 997 A.2d 768 (2010). A court that reviews an agency decision assesses whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision and whether the decision is based upon an error of law. Id. at 14-15, 997 A.2d 768. This standard accords less deference to an agency‘s legal conclusions than to its fact findings, although a reviewing court may accord some weight to an agency‘s interpretation and application of a statute that it administers. Id.
B. Legal Standard for License Suspension in Test Refusal Cases
We granted certiorari in both of these cases to consider whether the ALJs applied the correct legal standard in deciding to overturn the administrative license suspensions. In both cases the issue is whether, in a test refusal case, the MVA is required to show that the individual was driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired—as opposed to showing only that the law enforcement officer had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the individual was doing so. This is a question of law.
It may be tempting to treat an administrative hearing under
Proof of Predicate for Test Request v. Proof of Actual Driving
First, there is no requirement that the MVA establish that the individual was actually driving (or attempting to drive). In a test refusal case, the gravamen of the offense is the refusal to take the test. Usually, there is no dispute that the individual refused to take the test. Instead, the validity of the suspension often turns on whether the officer was authorized to ask the individual to take the test in the first place.
The plain language of the statute is clear as to what must be shown at a suspension hearing. Under
Despite the clarity of this language in subsection (f)(7) of the statute, it might be argued that the issue of actual driving is imported into an administrative hearing by virtue of another provision of the statute—subsection (a)(2). As indicated earlier, that subsection provides that “any person who drives or attempts to drive” in Maryland is subject to the implied consent, administrative per se law. The argument, then, is that there must be proof of actual driving for the statute to apply in the first place.14 This interpretation of law appears to contemplate that a holder of a Maryland license repeatedly gives implied consent (by driving) and then withdraws it (by parking). Apart from the fact that this interpretation would have the statute flashing on and off even for Maryland license holders who make use of that privilege every day, it would render the statute internally inconsistent. Under this conception of the statute the MVA would always have to establish that an individual had been driving (or attempting to drive) at a license suspension hearing, even though that is not one of the issues specified in subsection (f)(7) of the statute for decision at a hearing.
In 1981, a number of bills were introduced in the General Assembly to toughen the laws concerning drunk driving. Among those bills was Senate Bill 497 (1981), which proposed to amend the law to eliminate MVA‘s discretion in test refusal cases and mandate a license suspension in such a case. As the bill moved through the General Assembly it was amended to eliminate the express consent provision for Maryland licensees that had appeared in the original law and to substitute an implied consent provision that applied to both Maryland licensees and others—what is now subsection (a)(2). A status report in the legislative file on the various drunk driving bills states that “[t]his amendment brings Maryland into conformity with all other states and closes a loophole which permitted juveniles to escape the chemical test requirement.”15 Legislative Bill File for Senate Bill 497 (1981). The bill was enacted with that amendment. Chapter 244, Laws of Maryland 1981. Except for later amendments not pertinent here, the same language appears in subsection (a)(2) today.
It is thus evident that the statute has always been intended to apply, at a minimum, to anyone who holds a Maryland driver‘s license. The 1981 amendment that resulted in the current wording of subsection (a)(2) was not intended to limit the reach of the implied consent, administrative per se law as it pertained to Maryland licensees but rather to close a perceived “loophole” in its reach. As this Court reasoned in Motor Vehicle Administration v. Loane, 420 Md. 211, 226, 22 A.3d 833 (2011), the significance of subsection (a)(2) is that “the reach of the Statute is broad; that is, the administrative license provisions apply to any licensed driver ...” Id. at 226-27, 22 A.3d 833 (emphasis added). Nor was subsection (a)(2) intended to introduce additional issues into an administrative suspension hearing aside from those specified in subsection (f)(7). See Motor Vehicle Administration v. Aiken, 418 Md. 11, 31-36, 12 A.3d 656 (2011) (prefatory language of subsection (a)(2) relating motorist consent to
Reasonable Grounds v. Preponderance of Evidence
Second, a showing that an officer had a reasonable grounds to believe that something was true is different from proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it
It is not uncommon in the law for certain actions to be predicated upon “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” or “reasonable grounds” while related proceedings might be subject to a heavier burden of proof. For example, in the criminal law context, a judge may issue a search warrant based upon a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that suspected crime will be found in the place to be searched. Even if a subsequent criminal prosecution related to the same facts results in an acquittal, that does not mean that the finding of probable cause was incorrect or that the search warrant was invalid.
To the extent that a preponderance of evidence standard can be said to apply at an administrative license suspension hearing, it is that the MVA must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer had reasonable grounds at the time the officer requested the test. This is not the same thing as a showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the individual was in fact driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired.
Summary
As this Court has repeatedly held, the issues at play in a license suspension hearing are limited to the issues enumerated in
1. MVA v. Styslinger
It was undisputed that Mr. Styslinger had been drinking and that he declined to take a breath test after being advised of the administrative sanctions for a test refusal. Thus, the only remaining issue was whether Officer Pockett had “reasonable grounds to believe [that Mr. Styslinger] was driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol...”
The ALJ answered that question directly at the hearing. He found “that the police officer who stopped or detained the licensee had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.” That should have been the end of the analysis. Instead, the ALJ added an element not required by the statute. In particular, the ALJ stated “I find that the licensee did not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle” and later reiterated that “I find that the MVA has not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the licensee drove or attempted to drive.” But, in a test refusal case, the statute does not require the MVA to prove, for purposes of upholding a suspension, that the licensee was actually driving (or attempting to drive) a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Rather, the MVA need only show that the investigating officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was doing so.20
It is undeniable that the ALJ in Mr. Styslinger‘s case took great care to weigh the evidence before him, even postponing the hearing in an effort to hear directly from the officer. Nevertheless, the premise for much of that effort was legally incorrect. For purposes of the administrative suspension, there was no need to resolve whether Mr. Styslinger had actually driven (or attempted to drive) his vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time he was found passed out in the driver‘s seat—only whether Officer Pockett had reasonable grounds for believing that Mr. Styslinger had done so.
Because the ALJ found the officer had “reasonable grounds“—all that was necessary to support Styslinger‘s suspension—we reverse the order of the ALJ and remand the case for the affirmance of the suspension.
The ALJ in Mr. Krafft‘s case appears to have made a similar error. At the hearing, the ALJ summarized the facts set forth in the DR-15A form and stated that “I just can‘t conclude that the preponderance of the evidence establishes the MVA‘s case and because of that I‘m going to take no action.”
The ALJ‘s comments appear to suggest that the ALJ believed that the MVA was required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Krafft had driven (or attempted to drive) his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. But, as explained above, all that was required was for the MVA to establish that Trooper Dize had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Krafft had done so.21
Unlike the case with Mr. Styslinger, however, the ALJ in Mr. Krafft‘s case never made a finding—one way or the other—as to whether Trooper Dize had reasonable grounds for such a belief. She made no statements at the hearing on that issue. On the OAH form on which she documented her decision, the ALJ wrote “n/a“—presumably meaning “not applicable“—in the block concerning whether the trooper had reasonable grounds for such a belief. This may signify that the ALJ found that Trooper Dize lacked reasonable grounds, based on all the evidence available to the trooper at the time that he encountered Mr. Krafft. However, the ALJ also wrote “n/a” in the block concerning evidence of intoxication. Given that it was undisputed that Mr. Krafft was intoxicated, “n/a” may signify that the ALJ thought that both of those issues—reasonable grounds and intoxication—were not relevant or were moot. (Elsewhere on the OAH form, the ALJ herself stated that “Clearly the certification establishes the use of alcohol ....“).22 In other words, it did not matter to the ALJ whether Mr. Krafft was intoxicated or whether the trooper had reasonable grounds for his belief that Mr. Krafft had been driving in that state, in light of the ALJ‘s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Krafft had actually driven or attempted to drive that evening. If so, the ALJ was mistaken on the law.
Other entries made by the ALJ on the OAH form are equally puzzling. In answering the questions on the form about whether Trooper Dize had advised Mr.
The bottom line is that the ALJ‘s silence at the hearing on the issue of “reasonable grounds” and her use of the term “n/a” in the pertinent block on the OAH form mean that we do not know what the ALJ found with respect to this critical issue. Given the absence of a finding on the issue of “reasonable grounds,” we must remand the case for clarification under the standards set forth in this opinion.
III
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we hold that, in an administrative license suspension hearing, the only issues to be deter- mined are those enumerated by the statute. In a test refusal case involving suspected alcohol impairment, those issues ordinarily are: (1) whether the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the individual was driving (or attempting to drive) while impaired, (2) whether there was evidence of alcohol use by the individual, (3) whether the officer properly advised the individual in accordance with the statute when requesting the breath test, and (4) whether the individual refused the test.
In both of these cases, the ALJ went beyond the statute and required the MVA to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the licensee had actually driven (or attempted to drive) while impaired by alcohol. That was a legal error. In Mr. Styslinger‘s case, the ALJ made all the findings required to uphold the administrative license suspension and we simply reverse the decision and uphold the suspension. In Mr. Krafft‘s case, the ALJ either did not address the relevant issues or made clearly erroneous findings in light of the uncontradicted evidence. We shall reverse and remand that decision for the ALJ to clarify the decision.
WITH RESPECT TO NO. 52, JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR SOMERSET COUNTY VACATED AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
WITH RESPECT TO NO. 53, JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION FOR ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
IN EACH CASE, COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT.