Maryland Driving Intoxicated Breath Test Alcohol Concentration Refusal Lawyers Attorneys

MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION v. James R. VERMEERSCH

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

June 30, 1993

June 30, 1993, Filed

As he was required to do, the trooper also advised the respondent "of the administrative sanctions that shall be imposed for refusal to take the test and for test results indicating an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more at the time of testing. The respondent conceded at the show cause hearing that, when stopped by Trooper Finn, he had consumed alcohol, that Trooper Finn advised him of the administrative sanctions for refusing to take a breath test, and that he refused to take the breath test. He maintained, nevertheless, that he substantially complied with the Maryland Implied Consent Statute. The respondent proffered, through counsel, that, after refusing the breath test, he subsequently took, within minutes after the expiration ofthe two hour time period prescribed for alcohol concentration testing, a blood test for alcohol concentration. The results of that test, the respondent points out, were used at his trial for driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol and contributed to his conviction of the latter offense. Neither at the administrative hearing nor at the circuit court were records of the blood test, including the results, offered in evidence. The administrative law judge rejected the substantial compliance argument and ordered the respondent's driver's license suspended for 120 days pursuant to section 16-205.1(b)(1). The Circuit Court for Cecil County reversed. It found that therespondent had substantially complied with the Implied Consent Statute, noting that "as a practical matter the respondent did what needed to be done, and it was used by the court to convict him, and in fairness he shouldn't be punished for that. The Motor Vehicle Administration filed a petition for certiorari

Issue:

Whether a person who refused to take a test of his breath to determine alcohol concentration may avoid the mandatory sanctions prescribed by Maryland's Implied Consent Statute by subsequently taking a blood test and permitting the results of that test to be used against him at a trial for driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol?

Discussion:

The Court states that a refusal to take an alcohol concentration test is not vitiated by the fact that the driver takes a test within minutes of the expiration of the two hour time period and permits the results to be used at his trial for driving under the influence of alcohol. The act of refusal is complete at the moment that it was communicated to the officer. If respondent is correct, the Implied Consent Statute would be of limited effectiveness; a driver who refuses to take a breath test could nevertheless substantially comply with the statute and thus avoid its consequences, simply by subsequently obtaining an independent blood test. Such a result is wholly inconsistent withthe legislative policy underlying the Implied Consent Statute. A statute is to be construed reasonably and with reference to the Legislature's purpose, aim or policy as reflected in that statute. In that case, we noted that this Court has consistently recognized that the statutory provisions enacted to enforce the State's fight against drunken driving, namely Md.Code (1989, 1991 Cum.Supp.), 10-302-309 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article, were enacted for the protection of the public and not primarily for the protection of the accused. Oneof the methods the Legislature chose to accomplish that purpose was to provide an incentive for drivers detained under suspicion of drunk driving to take, rather than refuse, a test for alcohol concentration. This was sought to be accomplished by providing a sanction. i.e., "an outcome that is certain to happen," significantly more severe for refusal than for taking and failing the test. The Legislature contemplated not only that, the suspension of the driver's license must occur whenever the statutory prerequisites have been met, 16-205.1(f)(8)(v), but that the sanction applicable to the option the driver chose also occur. Unless that scheme continues to obtain, fulfillment of the legislative purpose cannot be assured.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, which had reversed the ALJ's suspension of the driver's license in an action under the Maryland Implied Consent Statute. The court further remanded the case to the circuit court with direction to enter judgment in favor of the Motor Vehicle Administration.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Maryland Driving Intoxicated Breath Test Alcohol Concentration Refusal Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

Maryland Montgomery County Driving Intoxicated Breathalyzer Test Blood Alcohol Content Lawyers Attorneys Maryland Anne Arundel County Convicted Driving Impaired Alcohol Revoked License Physical Control Lawyers Attorneys Duties of a DUI Lawyer Divorce Lawyers Va Beach Va:property Settlement Agreement Divorce Lawyers Harrisonburg Va:property Division Gold Investment Agencies - Investing In Great And Touchable Asset Classes Divorce Lawyers Newport News:property Settlement Agreement Jeff Korek Selected to the 2011 Best Lawyers in America® Fort Lauderdale Foreclosure Lawyer Explains, Foreclosure Is Not Your Only Option, You Have A Choice Investing Secret #2, Five Steps to Dollar Cost Averaging The Third Secret to Successful Investing Divorce Lawyers Roanoke Va:property Settlement Agreement When You Need to Hire a Virginia Criminal Lawyer