Bradford Owusu v. Motor Vehicle Administration
No. 10
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
November 20, 2018
Opinion by Hotten, J.
September Term, 2018; Argued: September 12, 2018; Watts, J., joins in judgment only.
FULL ADVISEMENT – SUFFICIENCY OF STATUTORY ADVISEMENT – The Court of Appeals held that full advisement occurs when officers inform motorists of administrative sanctions under
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – DUE PROCESS – The Court of Appeals held that the DR-15 unambiguously reflects the length of time motorists must participate in the Ignition Interlock Program in the event of test refusal. Motorists are not prejudiced in their decision-making by the DR-15’s representation of participation in the Ignition Interlock Program.
FULL ADVISEMENT – SUFFICIENCY OF STATUTORY ADVISEMENT – The Court of Appeals held that, in the event of a test refusal, the DR-15 provides motorists full advisement concerning the duration of mandated participation in the Ignition Interlock Program.
Case No. 434655V
Argued: September 12, 2018
Barbera, C.J.,
Greene,
*Adkins,
McDonald,
Watts,
Hotten,
Getty,
JJ.
Opinion by Hotten, J.
Watts, J., joins in judgment only.
Filed: November 20, 2018
*Adkins, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the
- Is it a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to
[Md. Code, Transportation Article] §16-205.1 when, after reading the [Motor Vehicle Administration’s (“MVA”)] DR-15 advice form, a police officer’s oral restatement of the penalties for failing and refusing a breath test omits the most severe mandatory penalty for refusal? - Is the DR-15 form’s failure to advise suspected drunk drivers of the length of time the ignition interlock would be required in the event of a refusal – one year – a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to
[Md. Code, Transportation Article] §16-205.1 ?
For reasons discussed infra, we answer both questions in the negative and shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Background
The Maryland Implied Consent Statute,
Legislative History
The scope of an officer’s required advice to motorists who are stopped on suspicion of intoxicated driving has expanded, as reflected by the legislative history of
The Commercial Driver’s License Program
The Maryland Commercial Driver’s License Act is codified in
In addition to any applicable driver’s license suspensions authorized under this section, in the case of a person operating a commercial motor vehicle or who holds a commercial instructional permit or a commercial driver’s license who refuses to take a test:
- Disqualify the person’s commercial instructional permit or commercial driver’s license for a period of 1 year for a first offense, 3 years for a first offense which occurs while transporting hazardous materials required to be placarded, and disqualify for life if the person’s commercial instructional permit or commercial driver’s license has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year. . . .
(Italics added for emphasis). The DR-15 also reflected these changes:
If you hold a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and were driving a non-commercial motor vehicle when you were stopped, and you refuse to submit to a test, your CDL or privilege shall be disqualified for 1 year for a 1st offense or for life if your CDL or privilege has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year under Maryland Transportation Article §16-812 (a) or (b), a federal law, or any other state’s law.
First, had he “passed” the test (showing an alcohol concentration of less than 0.08 percent), none of these sanctions would have applied. Second, had he failed the test, by any measure, he would have been subject to a suspension, with the possibility of receiving a restricted license through enrollment in the Interlock Program; the length of suspension and the possibility of further modifications would depend on the precise concentration of alcohol in his system. Third, had he refused to take the test, he would have been subject to a still longer suspension than would have been imposed in the event of any failure, but he still would have left open the possibility of receiving a restricted license through enrollment in the Interlock Program.
Under any scenario where Hill failed or refused to take the test, however, he would have also been subject to a one-year disqualification of his CDL. This disqualification is in addition to any suspension of non-commercial driving privileges.
415 Md. at 241, 999 A.2d at 1024-25 (citing
Petitioner’s Traffic Stop
On April 15, 2017, officers of the Montgomery County Police Department stopped Petitioner after he was observed driving erratically. Upon approaching the vehicle, officers detected a strong odor of alcohol on Petitioner’s breath and observed bloodshot watery eyes as well as slurred speech. Suspecting that Petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol, an officer instructed Petitioner to perform several field sobriety tests. Petitioner
You may refuse to submit to the test(s), unless you were in a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of or life-threatening injury to another person[.]
Suspension of Your Maryland Driver’s License or Driving Privilege:
If you refuse to submit to the test, or if you submit to the test and the result indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing, your Maryland driver’s license shall be confiscated, you will be issued an Order of Suspension and, if eligible, a temporary license valid for 45 days. The following periods of suspension shall be imposed against your license or privilege to drive in Maryland:If you refuse to submit to a test, your suspension shall be 270 days for a 1st offense and 2 years for a 2nd or subsequent offense.
If your test result is an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15, your suspension shall be 180 days. If the offense involves a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person, your suspension shall be 6 months for a 1st offense and 1 year for a 2nd or subsequent offense.
If your test result is an alcohol concentration of 0.08 but less than 0.15, your suspension may be modified or a restricted license may be issued at a hearing[.]
If your test result is an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more, your suspension shall be 180 days for a 1st offense and 270 days for a 2nd or subsequent offense. If the offense involves a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of another person, your suspension shall be 1 year for a 1st offense and for a 2nd or subsequent offense your license shall be revoked.
If you refuse a test, or take a test with a result of 0.15 or more, you shall be ineligible for modification of your suspension or the issuance of a restricted
license, unless you participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program under Maryland Transportation Article §16-404.1.
If you hold a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and were driving a non-commercial motor vehicle when you were stopped, and you refuse to submit to a test, your CDL or privilege shall be disqualified for 1 year for a 1st offense or for life if your CDL or privilege has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year under Maryland Transportation Article §16-812 (a) or (b), a federal law, or any other state’s law.
***
Instead of requesting a hearing or upon the suspension or revocation of your driver’s license, you may elect to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program if the following conditions are met: 1) your driver’s license is not currently suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused, and 2) within 30 days of the date of this Order of Suspension you a) elect in writing to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more or you refused the test or 6 months if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15; and b) surrender a valid Maryland driver’s license or sign a statement certifying that the license is no longer in your possession. . . .
(Bold in original) (italics and underling added for emphasis). A body camera used throughout Petitioner’s stop and arrest reveals that officers attempted to clarify whether Petitioner held a CDL. During their inquiry and after reading the DR-15, the officers orally asserted the repercussions of refusing to take the test:
Officer 1: Basically what I read you is, if you refuse to submit to the test, it’s 270 days for your license, but you have a CDL Class B (holding license).
Officer 2: You drive for Metro?
Officer 1: Who do you drive for? The CDL that you have.
Officer 2: You drive a Metro bus?
Officer 1: It says trains, coach, or bus, you drive a bus?
Officer 2: I saw your Metro ID in your wallet, you drive for Metro? You realize if you don’t take the test, your driver’s license is going to be suspended for 270 days, if you don’t take this test. And if you take it, and it’s a high blow, you blow anything 0.08 or higher, you
Petitioner did not respond. The officers did not repeat the advisement that Petitioner’s CDL would be disqualified for a year if he opted to refuse the test. After repeatedly asking Petitioner whether he wanted to take the test and based on his lacking responsiveness, the officers treated the lack of response as a refusal. As a result, Petitioner was issued an Order of Suspension.
Petitioner filed a timely request for an administrative hearing, which was held on July 14, 2017. Petitioner testified that the officers’ oral assertions after the DR-15 led him to believe that he would be able to get his license and CDL back after 270 days. Petitioner testified that, had he known his CDL would be disqualified for a full year, he would have opted to take the test. Petitioner asserted that the officers’ oral advisements and the DR-15 were false, misleading and violated his due process rights, as well as his right to “full advisement” of administrative sanctions under
On January 10, 2018, following a hearing, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. Following the circuit court decision, Petitioner noted a timely appeal and we granted certiorari.
This Court has stated that “[w]e review an administrative agency’s decision under the same statutory standards as the [c]ircuit [c]ourt,” and evaluate the decision of the agency rather than the circuit court. Hill, 415 Md. at 239, 999 A.2d at 1023 (internal quotations and citations omitted); Gigeous v. Eastern Correctional Institution, 363 Md. 481, 495-96, 769 A.2d 912, 921 (2001). We, however, may always determine “if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” Hill, 415 Md. at 239, 999 A.2d at 1023 (citations omitted). “Therefore, ordinarily the court reviewing a final decision of an administrative agency shall determine (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.” Gigeous, 363 Md. at 496, 769 A.2d at 922 (internal citations omitted). Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 497, 769 A.2d at 922 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, purely legal questions are reviewed de novo with “‘considerable weight’ to the agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers.” People’s Ins. Counsel Div. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 214 Md. App. 438, 449, 76 A.3d 517, 524 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
A. The officers’ oral advisements after a complete reading of the DR-15 did not pose a statutory or due process violation.
Petitioner contends that his statutory right to be fully advised of sanctions under
Full advisement under Transp. § 16-205.1
In Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Chamberlain, 326 Md. 306, 604 A.2d 919 (1992), we held that a detaining officer need only advise a detained motorist of the administrative sanctions that are enumerated in
[a]side from [Transp.] § 16–205.1(b)(1), the critical provisions of the statute refer to “administrative sanctions that shall be imposed;” it is only those of which a driver is required to be informed. Mere potential eligibility for modification of suspension or a restrictive license is not an “administrative sanction that shall be imposed.”
326 Md. at 316, 604 A.2d at 924-25. Our holding in Chamberlain explained that detained motorists are fully advised of their rights when notified of administrative sanctions. Id. at 317, 323, 604 A.2d at 924, 927. These sanctions are outlined clearly in the DR-15 and a reading of the Advice of Rights form provides full advisement to detained motorists. We held that Mr. Chamberlain was fully advised of his rights through a reading of the DR-15 because he was provided notice of administrative sanctions; modification of suspension or a restrictive license was simply a “mere potentiality” that did not constitute an administrative sanction that had to be disclosed by the officer. Id. at 318, 604 A. 2d at 924-25.
In the case at bar, Petitioner was fully advised of sanctions under
If you hold a commercial driver’s license (CDL) and were driving a non-commercial motor vehicle when you were stopped, and your refuse to submit to a test, your CDL or privilege shall be disqualified for 1 year for a 1st offense or for life if your CDL or privilege has been previously disqualified for at least 1 year under Maryland Transportation Article § 16-812(a) or (b), a federal law, or any other state’s law.
Petitioner asserts that full advisement is negated when motorists are provided with false or misleading advice. In Hare v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 326 Md. 296, 604 A.2d 914 (1992), we indicated that a detaining officer’s negation of previously and properly given sanctions can violate a motorist’s due process rights. Id. at 306, 604 A.2d at 919. We cautioned that though officers need not provide detainees with “mere potentialities” of sanctions, the State cannot “mislead the defendant or construct road blocks, thus unduly burdening decision-making.” Id. at 304, 604 A.2d at 918. We further elaborated upon the term “full advisement” and the implications of subsequent assertions that may prove to be false or misleading in Forman v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 332 Md. 201, 630 A.2d 753 (1993). We stated:
“Fully advised” means not only advised initially, but the detaining officer must also take care not to subsequently confuse or mislead the driver as to his or her rights under the statute. Further, the officer certainly must not in any way induce the driver into refusing the test, a result running counter to the statute’s purpose of encouraging drivers to submit to alcohol concentration tests.
332 Md. at 217, 630 A.2d at 762 (emphasis in original). In the case at bar, Petitioner was read the DR-15 in full. Officers subsequently advised Petitioner that if he took the test, his license would be suspended for 180 days, but if he did not take the test, his license would be suspended for 270 days. This timeframe regarding the suspension of Petitioner’s non-CDL license was proper. The officers did, however, misstate the implication on Petitioner’s work by stating “[T]his can affect your work for 180 days or it can affect your
Petitioner asserts that the oral advisements were misleading, particularly with regards to the effect on his work, because they implied that Petitioner’s sanction would be confined to a maximum of 270 days rather than a year-long disqualification of his CDL. There is no evidence that officers’ oral statements misled or confused Petitioner regarding the effect a test refusal could have on his employment. Petitioner did not testify that the oral advisements misled him in any way and the body camera footage reveals that Petitioner was unresponsive throughout the officers’ inquiry regarding whether he wanted to take the test. There is nothing that demonstrates the officers constructed an obstacle or “road block” that unduly burdened Petitioner’s decision-making, nor does anything that the officers said suggest that they induced Petitioner’s decision-making. Because the information in the DR-15 provided full advisement and the officers’ verbal assertions were not misleading or false, Petitioner’s statutory claim regarding full advisement is without merit.
As-Applied Due Process Claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights
Petitioner makes an as-applied due process claim, asserting that the officers’ oral advisements prejudiced him because he did not appreciate that his CDL would be disqualified for a year if he refused the test. We have held that a driver’s license is an entitlement which cannot be taken away without due process. Hare, 326 Md. at 301, 604
The continued possession of a driver’s license . . . may become essential to earning a livelihood; as such, it is an entitlement which cannot be taken without the due process mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
***
What process a defendant is due is, of course, dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case. To make that determination, we have to examine the importance of the life, liberty, or property interest at stake and the extent to which the questioned procedure might produce the possibility of uninformed decision-making. Against the individual’s interest, we must weigh the State’s legitimate competing interest, which necessarily includes the avoidance of the increased administrative or fiscal burdens resulting from the requested procedure.
Id. at 301-03, 604 A.2d at 916-17 (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted). We concluded that the DR-15 did not violate Mr. Hare’s right to due process because the officer provided the advice required by
Petitioner, akin to Mr. Hare, was fully advised of sanctions under
B. The DR-15 properly advises non-CDL motorists of the length of time the ignition interlock would be required in the event of a refusal, and therefore there is no violation of due process or a failure to “fully advise” a driver pursuant to Transp. § 16-205.1 .
Petitioner asserts that the DR-15 did not advise him of the period of participation for the Interlock Program for a motorist who refuses the test, claiming that the form is misleading because it implies that motorists can get an interlock restriction for 270 days
Inform the person that, if the person refuses a test or takes a test that indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more at the time of testing, the person may participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program under
Transp. § 16-404.1 of this title instead of requesting a hearing under this paragraph, if the following conditions are met:
- The person’s driver’s license is not currently suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused; and
- Within the same time limits set forth in item (v) of this paragraph, the person:
- Surrenders a valid Maryland driver’s license or signs a statement certifying that the driver’s license is no longer in the person’s possession; and
- Elects in writing to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year[.]
(Italics added for emphasis). The DR-15 provides officers with a script to address
Instead of requesting a hearing or upon the suspension or revocation of your driver’s license, you may elect to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program if the following conditions are met: 1) your driver’s license is not currently suspended, revoked, canceled, or refused, and 2) within 30 days of the date of this Order of Suspension you a) elect in writing to participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more or you refused the test or 6 months if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 but less than 0.15; and b) surrender a valid Maryland driver’s license or sign a statement certifying that the license is no longer in your possession. An Ignition Interlock Election form is located on the reverse side of the driver’s copy of the Order of Suspension.
(Bold in original) (italics added for emphasis). Petitioner asserts that this one year participation in the Interlock Program for refusing a test or having an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more is unclear, resulting in a violation of full advisement and due process.
If you refuse to submit to a test, your suspension shall be 270 days for a 1st offense and 2 years for a 2nd or subsequent offense.
***
If you refuse a test, or take a test with a result of 0.15 or more, you shall be ineligible for modification of your suspension or the issuance of a restricted license, unless you participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program under Maryland Transportation Article §16-404.1.
(Bold in original). Petitioner asserts that this portion of the DR-15 implies that motorists are eligible for modification of suspension or issuance of a restricted license if they participate in the Interlock Program for a period of 270 days. This is in contrast to the mandated year of participation that results from test refusal or a blood alcohol concentration at or above 0.15. However, the language of the DR-15 is clear. The provision providing that motorists must “participate in the Ignition Interlock System Program for 1 year if your test resulted in an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more or if you refused the test. . .” is unequivocal. Not only was Petitioner read this provision, but he was provided with a copy of the DR-15 to follow along as officers read it to him. The provision outlining the year-long duration begins with a bolded heading that draws the readers’ attention to the fact that the paragraph applies specifically to the Interlock Program. There is no ambiguity regarding this provision or duration.
In Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Seenath, 448 Md. 145, 136 A.3d 885 (2016), we held that the language of the Advice of Rights form did not violate due process as applied to the driver, nor was the form misleading or lacking full advisement as to a CDL holder’s
Petitioner’s argument does not support a statutory or due process challenge to the sufficiency of the Advice of Rights form, as the form is unambiguous and provides full advisement of the resulting administrative sanctions. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the form. He never inquired about any durational requirements while he was with officers, nor was he responsive to officers’ queries regarding whether or not he wanted to take a blood alcohol test. We hold that the DR-15 fully advises motorists of the length of time the ignition interlock is required in the event of test refusal or when a motorist has an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or higher.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we determine that the officers’ oral advisements after a complete reading of the DR-15 did not operate to negate full advisement, nor did the advisements result in prejudice that violated Petitioner’s due process rights. We also determine that the DR-15 is unambiguous regarding the duration of participation in the Interlock Program and is
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.
Judge Watts joins in judgment only.