 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Testerman v. Shahan8/4/2004
icer's findings of fact, the police officer observed the defendant's car drift onto the shoulder of the road and nearly strike a telephone pole. The car then jerked abruptly to the left causing the two left tires to cross the centerline. The officer pulled Testerman over as a result. When the officer approached the car, he smelled the strong odor of alcohol on Defendant's breath. The officer also reported that Testerman's eyes were glassy, his face was extremely flushed, and his speech was slurred and mumbled. The officer conducted field sobriety tests. Testerman passed four and failed five. When exiting the vehicle, he dropped his wallet and almost fell over when he picked it up.
However, appellant asserts the hearing officer erred by considering evidence not in the record. Testerman argues that the hearing officer based her belief that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, partly on her knowledge of the location of a store. The hearing officer made note that the store Testerman told the officer he was coming from, was not in the direction from which he was traveling. The location of the store was not in evidence. Testerman argues that the hearing officer considered her own personal knowledge of the location of the store when she weighed the factors that led to her holding. Even if true, I find that the hearing officer's consideration of this fact not in evidence was harmless error. As stated above, the defendant is estopped from raising the finally determined issue of probable cause to arrest. Further, the record below contains ample sufficient evidence without, and not reliant upon, this claimed fact not in evidence to support the hearing officer's finding by a preponderance of violation of 21 Del. C. § 4177. The hearing officer's consideration of the alleged fact not in evidence is harmless error, and it's exclusion would not have altered the ultimate conclusion.
Based upon the facts within the record, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the DMV's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Generally, findings of fact by an administrative agency will not be rejected so long as they are "the product of an orderly and logical deductive process." Eskridge v. Voshell, 593 A.2d 589 (Del.1991). The Department of Motor Vehicles hearing officer did not commit legal error by concluding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Testerman violated 21 Del. C. § 4177.
CONCLUSION
*4 In the motion to suppress filed with this Court by appellant in his criminal DUI proceeding, this Court found there was legal reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the defendant, and probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI. The defendant was not convicted of DUI, but ultimately pled to an amended charge. In the prior administrative DMV license revocation hearing arising from the same DUI arrest, the DMV hearing officer reached the same conclusions regarding reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause, and revoked the defendant's license. The appellant is estopped from attacking these rulings on appeal by this Court's subsequent, final determinations of the same issues in the motion to suppress. Further, the DMV hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated 21 Del. C. § 4177, or otherwise commit reversible error. Accordingly, the Order of the Department of Motor Vehicles is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|