Summary
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that, in a driver's-license suspension proceeding under Transportation Article § 16-205.1, the Administrative Law Judge must determine whether the detaining officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the individual was driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol. The court concluded that the ALJ improperly applied the criminal-law “sheltering” factors from Atkinson v. State instead of evaluating the officer's reasonable grounds. The court reversed the Circuit Court for Caroline County and assessed costs against John W. Pollard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether, in a test-refusal proceeding under Maryland Transportation Article § 16-205.1, the Motor Vehicle Administration must prove that the individual actually drove or attempted to drive while under the influence, or instead must prove only that the detaining officer had reasonable grounds to believe the individual had done so.
- Whether the ALJ erred by applying the sheltering and actual-physical-control factors from Atkinson v. State rather than determining whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Pollard had been driving or attempting to drive while under the influence.
- Whether the record established reasonable grounds for the officer's belief even though the officer did not observe Pollard driving.
Holdings
- In a test-refusal case under Transportation Article § 16-205.1, the Motor Vehicle Administration need not prove that the individual actually drove or attempted to drive while under the influence; it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the detaining officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the individual had been driving or attempting to drive while under the influence.
- The ALJ erred by applying Atkinson v. State and requiring consideration of whether Pollard was actually in physical control of the vehicle; the Atkinson factors do not apply to a § 16-205.1 test-refusal case.
- An officer may have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual drove or attempted to drive while under the influence based on reasonable inferences from the totality of the circumstances, even when the officer did not observe the individual driving.
Key quotations
“Under Transp. § 16-205.1, the MVA must prove that the law enforcement officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the detained individual had been driving or attempting to drive rather than prove that the individual was actually driving or attempting to drive.” (5)
“The MVA must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the “investigating officer had reasonable grounds to believe” that the detained individual was driving or attempting to drive.” (7)
“Based on these circumstances, Trooper Tucker could reasonably infer that Pollard was driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol even without observing Pollard operate his vehicle.” (9)
Factual background
At approximately 12:07 a.m. on October 1, 2017, Trooper John Tucker found Pollard asleep in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle on or near the driveway of Pollard's ex-girlfriend's rural property. The keys were in the ignition, the engine was off, and Pollard's seat was reclined. Tucker observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol; Pollard refused field sobriety testing, a preliminary breath test, and a later breathalyzer test after receiving the required advice of rights.
Procedural history
After Pollard refused a breathalyzer test, the Motor Vehicle Administration issued an order suspending his driver's license under Maryland Transportation Article § 16-205.1. An ALJ concluded that Pollard was sheltering in his vehicle and therefore had not violated the statute, without determining whether the detaining officer had reasonable grounds to believe Pollard had been driving or attempting to drive while under the influence. The Circuit Court for Caroline County affirmed, and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari, reversed the circuit court, and assessed costs against Pollard.