 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hargrove v. Howard12/6/2005
t requires the reviewing court to examine all competent evidence (the "whole record") in order to determine whether the agency decision is supported by "substantial evidence." Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Therefore, if we conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the [agency's] decision, we must uphold it. We note that while the whole-record test does require the court to take into account both the evidence justifying the agency's decision and the contradictory evidence from which a different result could be reached, the test does not allow the reviewing court to replace the [agency's] judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably have reached a different result had the matter been before it de novo.
Meads v. N.C. Dep't of Agric., 349 N.C. 656, 663, 509 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Based on our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that substantial evidence exists to support the DMV's conclusion that petitioner violated the terms of his restoration agreement. The record shows that petitioner registered high alcohol readings of .159 and .175 on 29 January and 30 January 2003. Affidavits from Monitech technicians stated that on those dates, the ignition interlock device was operating properly and that the readings were indicative of petitioner's blood alcohol content. The affidavits further stated that petitioner's refusal to perform a mandatory retest on 29 January following the .159 reading was consistent with an accurate alcohol reading, and thereadings on 30 January following the .175 reading _ including a "pass" immediately after the .175 test, followed by 12 minutes driving, and then an extended period of inactivity _ suggested "possible assistance" in obtaining the pass test. Although petitioner blamed the high alcohol readings on grape soda, technicians stated that the high reading could not be caused by food. Furthermore, petitioner did not explain his failure to stop for a standing retest after failing the rolling retest with a reading of .159.
Based on the evidence before the hearing officer, the decision to revoke the restoration of petitioner's conditional license was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by upholding respondent's decision.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|