 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Gaddy6/30/1994
Opinion by Karwacki, J.
Joe Pritchard Gaddy was operating his automobile on April 22, 1993, when he was stopped by Anne Arundel County Police Officer M. Edmonson. The officer certified that the stop was made because Gaddy's vehicle had made a very wide turn and had crossed the center line several times. After noticing Gaddy's bloodshot eyes, his poor balance, and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, the officer administered several field sobriety tests, which Gaddy failed. The officer then advised Gaddy of his rights under Maryland Code (1974, 1992 Repl. Vol., 1993 Cum. Supp.), § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article and requested that he submit to a test of his breath for alcohol concentration ("a breathalyzer test"). Gaddy refused.
As required by the statute, the officer confiscated Gaddy's driver's license, issued him a temporary, 45-day license and forwarded the appropriate documents -- including the form "DR-15A" -- to the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). Gaddy requested a hearing, as was his right under § 16-205.1.
At the administrative hearing, which was held on June 8, 1993, Gaddy objected to the admission of the DR-15A certificate. Citing § 16.205.1(f)(7)(ii), he argued that the certificate was not admissible as prima facie evidence that he had refused to take the breathalyzer test because it was not also executed by a "Test Technician or Analyst." The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) overruled the objection. After no other evidence was offered by the MVA or Gaddy, the ALJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that Gaddy had refused to take the test. Thereafter, the ALJ imposed a 120-day suspension of Gaddy's license pursuant to § 16-205.1.
The MVA granted a stay of the suspension pending judicial review by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The circuit court reversed the decision of the ALJ, holding that the certification signed by the arresting officer that Gaddy had refused to take the alcohol concentration test was insufficient to be admitted as evidence under § 16-205.1(f)(7)(ii).
The MVA petitioned this Court for certiorari, asserting that the circuit court's interpretation of the statute is illogical. We have granted the petition, and we shall summarily reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and remand the case to that court for the entry of a judgment affirming the order of the MVA.
The issue before us is one of statutory construction. Maryland Code (1974, 1992 Repl. Vol., 1993 Cum. Supp.), § 16-205.1(f)(7)(ii) of the Transportation Article reads:
" § 16-205.1. Suspension or disqualification for refusal to submit to chemical tests for intoxication.
(f) Notice and hearing on refusal to take test; suspension of privilege to drive; disqualification from driving commercial vehicles.
[(7)] (ii) The sworn statement of the police officer and of the test technician or analyst shall be prima facie evidence of a test refusal or a test resulting in an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more at the time of testing."
The circuit court interpreted this statute to require the signatures of both the arresting officer and the test technician, even if no test was administered by the technician. The court acknowledged that this section of the statute "is not a paragon of good legislative workmanship and wording," but stated that, if it held otherwise, it would be forced "to ignore the conjunction 'and' so visibly placed in the statute."
In its petition for certiorari, the MVA argues that such a construction of § 16-205.1(f)(7)(ii) leads to an absurd
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|