 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bushey v. Secretary of State4/17/2003
Pending before the Court is Tina Bushey's (the "Petitioner") M.R. Civ. P. 80(C) appeal from the Department of Motor Vehicle's ("DMV") decision to suspend her license pursuant 29A M.R.S.A. § 2521. For the following reasons the Court denies the Petitioner's appeal.
Background
On March 26, 2002, the Penobscot County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene of a one-car accident on Route 2 in Hermon, Penobscot County, Maine. When the officers arrived they noticed three people in the overturned vehicle. The officers did not notice any movement and it appeared that the Petitioner was trapped in the driver's seat. Eventually the passengers, Timothy Coleman and Matt Gallant, began to move and exited the vehicle. The officers allege that Mr. Gallant told them that they had all been drinking before the accident and that the Petitioner had been driving. Deputy Randall Parsons smelled alcohol on the breath of all three individuals and observed multiple alcohol containers in, on and around the vehicle. The officers removed the Petitioner from the vehicle with the Jaws of Life and transported her to Eastern Maine Medical Center ("EMMC").
After securing the scene the officers, believing that the Petitioner had been operating under the influence, went to EMMC to interview the Petitioner and obtain a blood sample. Deputy William Laughlin discussed the situation with medical personnel and they informed him that the Petitioner was in stable condition. [FN1] Deputy Laughlin asked a nurse to draw a blood sample at which time the Petitioner stated that she had not been driving and would not submit to a blood test. The Petitioner stated that someone else had been driving the vehicle and had left the scene of the accident on foot. At this time Deputy Laughlin read the implied consent warning form several times to the Petitioner. The Petitioner repeatedly stated that she was not driving, refused to submit to a blood test and eventually became disorderly and abusive towards the officers.
FN1. The Petitioner later received surgery for her wounds, however at the time in question she had not undergone any operations and the hospital staff apparently felt she was stable and alert enough to consent to a blood test.
The BMV suspended the Petitioner's motor vehicle operating privileges for two hundred seventy-five days for failing to submit to chemical testing after operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants. The Petitioner appealed this decision and an authorized Hearing Examiner of the Secretary of State held an administrative hearing. The Hearing Examiner found the officers had probable cause to believe the Petitioner had been driving under the influence, that the officers read the implied consent warnings to the Petitioner prior to her refusal and upheld the decision to suspend her license. The Petitioner then filed the present appeal.
Discussion
Courts review an agency's decision for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by substantial evidence. Hopkins v. Department of Human Services, 2002 ME 129, 8, 802 A.2d 999. Courts afford an agency's factual findings great deference and will uphold those findings if they are supported by "competent and substantial evidence." Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would rely on as sufficient support for a conclusion. Richard Thacker et al. v. Konover Development Corp., et al. 2003 ME 30, 8, 818 A.2d 1013. The Court does not substitute its own judgment and only vacates an agency's decision if there is no competent evidence that supports the decision. Id.
*2 The Petitioner argues that, due to her head injuries, she did not understand the consequences of refusing to submit to a blood test. [FN2] The Petitioner notes that when the off
Page 1 2 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|