 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland v. Werkheiser5/9/1984
In this instance we are presented with the question whether dismissal is the appropriate sanction, in a criminal case involving driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol, where the provisions of Maryland Code (1977, 1983 Cum.Supp.), Transportation Article, § 16-205.1(d)(1)(iii), were not complied with. We conclude dismissal not to have been appropriate and therefore reverse.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 828g, the parties agreed to a Statement of Facts.
On October 22, 1982, appellee, Robert Buck Werkheiser, was involved in a single car accident on State Route 305 in Queen Anne's County, Maryland. Maryland State Trooper Frank Ford investigated the accident. He had reasonable grounds to believe that Werkheiser was driving or attempting to drive while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol due to the odor of alcohol on Werkheiser and in his car.
Werkheiser was transported to a hospital in Easton for medical treatment for a gash in his head. He was accompanied by Trooper Ford.
Werkheiser was subsequently charged in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County with driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol in violation of § 21-902(b) of the Transportation Article. On June 30, 1983, Werkheiser filed a motion in limine seeking dismissal of the charges because of the state's failure to comply with
the terms of Transportation Article, § 16-205.1(d)(1), and obtain a blood chemical test from Werkheiser while he was unconscious. A hearing was held on Werkheiser's motion on July 5, 1983; the parties stipulated to certain facts.
It was stipulated that Werkheiser was 'unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing to take a chemical test' under § 16-205.1(d)(1). It was further stipulated that blood was not drawn because Trooper Ford was 'not aware that he was required to do so; that he felt that he was doing everything that he was required to do under the law.' Ford would have testified that he contacted his sergeant who told him that 'if the hospital takes a test of his blood as part of treating him, you can later summons that, otherwise, that's the only thing you can do.' It was further stipulated that Trooper Ford 'did not direct a qualified medical person to withdraw blood for a chemical test to determine the alcohol content' of Werkheiser's blood, a procedure which 'would not have jeopardized' his health or well being.
The trial judge observed that the issue was one of first impression in Maryland and ruled that because the state failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of § 16-205.1(d)(1) the state had violated Werkheiser's constitutional right to due process, and that the only appropriate sanction was dismissal of the charging document. In accordance with this ruling, Judge Carter dismissed the charges against Werkheiser on July 5, 1983.
The state poses a single question for our consideration, "Whether dismissal of the charging document was the appropriate sanction for non-compliance with Transportation Article[,] § 16-205.1(d)(1)(iii)."
The state argues that the duty imposed on police officers by this section is not mandatory but, rather, is only directory. Alternatively, the state argues that, in any event, the sanction of dismissal, for non-compliance, was inappropriate. Not surprisingly, the appellee argues that the duty is
mandatory and dismissal is the proper sanction. All parties agree, as they must, that there is no sanction provided for in the statute.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|