|
|
|
CDL License of Driver Properly Suspended for Refusing Breathalyzer
(August 2010) By Kevin M. Cox, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Hill v. Motor Vehicle Administration,
No. 82 (Md. App. Jul. 26, 2010) | View pdf
Plaintiff James E. Hill, the holder of a commercial
driver's license ("CDL"), was detained by an officer of the Charles County
Sheriff's Department on suspicion of drunk driving. During the traffic stop, Mr.
Hill was advised of his right to refuse to take a breathalyzer test and of the
sanctions that would be imposed against him if he either failed or refused. One
of the potential penalties for failing or refusing to submit to the test
included a one-year disqualification of his CDL. Mr. Hill refused the test and
was subjected to an administrative hearing in order to determine the sanctions
that would be imposed against him.
At the administrative hearing, Mr. Hill argued that he had
not been fully advised of his rights, as required by due process and by Md. Code
Ann., Transp. § 16-205.1, because the advisement (form DR-15) incorrectly misled
him into believing that he could retain his CDL through participation in an
Interlock Ignition System Program even if he refused to submit to the test. The
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that Mr. Hill had been properly advised
of his rights and imposed the mandatory one-year CDL disqualification. Mr. Hill
sought judicial review of the ALJ's decision in the Circuit Court for Charles
County, which affirmed the decision. Mr. Hill then appealed to the Court of
Special Appeals.
The Court of Special Appeals noted that due process
requires only that the State not unduly burden a detained driver's decision
making process in determining whether to submit to a breathalyzer test.
Likewise, Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 16-205.1 requires that a detained driver
be fully advised of applicable sanctions as a prerequisite for imposing any
suspension. Neither due process nor the governing statute requires that a
driver be warned of every potential sanction that could apply if the test is
refused. The Court found that the DR-15 form used by the Motor Vehicle
Administration ("MVA") in the traffic stop clearly advised Mr. Hill that his
CDL would be disqualified if he refused the test, and that participation in
the Interlock Ignition System Program was limited to non-commercial driving
privileges. The court found that this bifurcated approach to the sanctions
framework is completely within the discretion of the General Assembly.
Thus, the Court of Special Appeals held that Mr. Hill's
due process rights were not violated during his traffic stop because the
information conveyed to him and the DR-15 form used by the MVA was not
misleading, and did not obstruct his ability to make an informed decision
about whether to refuse a breathalyzer test. The court also held that the
DR-15 form fully advised Mr. Hill of the applicable sanctions under the
Transportation Article, and thus satisfied the statutory requirements for
imposing a suspension on him.
|
|
|
Top
