 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lytle4/8/2003
MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION - TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE - SECTION 16-205.1 - SUSPENSION OF LICENSE FOR EXCEEDING PERMISSIBLE STATUTORY BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT - ADMINISTRATIVE PER SE STANDARD - MARGIN OF ERROR - DUE PROCESS.
Maryland Code (1977, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2000 Supp.), Transportation Article, § 16-205.1 is an administrative per se statute that mandated sanctions be imposed on the basis of a certified and unrebutted 0.10 test result from a chemical breath test for alcohol. The certified test result alone was prima facie evidence of the tested person's blood alcohol concentration at the time of testing. The absence of a requirement that the plus or minus 0.01 margin of error inherent in breath test instruments be applied in favor of the tested person does not violate the tested person's due process rights.
I.
Respondent in this case, Michael Patrick Lytle, was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and administered a breathalyzer test. The relevant statutory provisions establish a rebuttable presumption that the test results generated by certain breath test instruments administered by trained test technicians are accurate. That presumption may be rebutted at an administrative evidentiary hearing by a showing that the specific instrument used to measure the subject's breath was malfunctioning at the time of testing or that human error caused the test to generate an inaccurate result. Respondent offered no evidence or arguments on either score before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") of the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"). Instead, he claimed generally that the type of machine used, the Intox EC/IR, had a plus or minus 0.01 range of accuracy and that that margin of error must be applied to his case, yielding a blood alcohol content ("BAC") measurement below the then prevailing 0.10 benchmark for DWI. The specific issue before us is whether a general "margin of error" of the "accepted scientific range of accuracy" of the type of test instrument used must be applied to certified test results produced by a specific Intox EC/IR machine in a prima facie case of violating Maryland Code, Title 16, § 16-205.1(f)(8)(i)(4)(B).
A.
The Transportation Article of the Maryland Code, Title 16 (Vehicle Laws - Driver's Licenses), Subtitle 2 (Cancellation, Refusal, Suspension, or Revocation), §§ 16-201 - 213 (1977, 1999 Repl. Vol. and 2000 Supp.), § 16-205.1(b)(2) provides that
. . . if a police officer stops or detains any person who the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe is or has been driving or attempting to drive under the influence of alcohol . . . the police officer shall: (i) Detain the person; (ii) Request that the person permit a test to be taken; and (iii) Advise the person of the administrative sanctions that shall be imposed for refusal to take the test, . . . .
The type of testing authorized under § 16-205.1 is a test of breath or, under limited exceptions, a blood test to determine alcohol concentration. § 16-205.1(a)(1)(iv). When the test is administered, the toxicologist's reporting protocol is to reduce the readings of the test instrument to a reported result. The "test result" is generated when the operator takes the lowest of two or three readings and records the lowest result after it is rounded down to the second decimal place. Regulations of the State Toxicologist, Amendment 1, Section C(5) (1999). When a test results in a BAC of 0.10 or more at the time of testing, the police officer administering the test "shall . . . personally serve an order of suspension on the person." § 16-205.1(b)(3)(ii). The police officer then must send a sworn statement to the Motor Vehicle Administrati
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|