Bowman v. Palmour
| Decision Date | 28 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A0236,A93A0236 |
| Citation | 433 S.E.2d 380,209 Ga.App. 270 |
| Parties | BOWMAN v. PALMOUR. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Daryl A. Robinson, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Kay D. Baker, Staff Atty., for appellant.
Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, Jr., Westbrook & Vines, Carlton H. Vines, Summerville, for appellee.
We granted the application for discretionary appeal of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety to review the superior court's reversal of the department's affirmance of the suspension of Palmour's driver's license. We reverse.
1. When sitting in review of a department's affirmance of an administrative decision, the superior court sits only as an appellate court. Ga. Power Co. v. Ga. Pub. Svc. Comm., 196 Ga.App. 572, 579-580(5), 396 S.E.2d 562 (1990). It may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. OCGA § 50-13-19(h)(5), (6); Ga. Power Co., supra. The "any evidence" test is the applicable touchstone and the presence of conflicting evidence is sufficient to satisfy that test. Id.
Viewing the evidence presented at the administrative hearing in the light favorable to the decision rendered, 1 it showed that Mrs. Palmour was driving north on Highway 27 in Rome about 9:30 p.m. when she was approached by Rome Police Officer Lively in his cruiser going south. From observing her van, Officer Lively concluded that she was exceeding the posted 40 mph speed limit. He turned his car around and began to follow her. He then observed the van veer over the center yellow line and decided to pull it over. He activated his blue lights just as the van approached an intersection where it ran a red light. The van then pulled over and Officer Lively detected an odor of alcohol as he approached the driver's window. Mrs. Palmour exited the van and moved to the rear of the van. The officer observed that her eyes were bloodshot and watery and that the odor of alcohol was detectable in her presence. He also observed a "swayingness" in her. He asked her to blow into an alcosensor, but she refused. He then inquired if she had had anything to drink, to which she responded negatively. He advised that the sensor would only detect alcohol and she had nothing to worry about if she had consumed none. She then advised that she had consumed a glass of wine with dinner and again refused to blow on the alcosensor. She was also using a breath mint.
At that point, the officer asked if she would do field tests, advising her that she did not have to. She refused. She was placed under arrest for DUI and was read the implied consent warnings. She was asked if she would comply with the state administered test, but made no response. She was placed in the rear of the cruiser while Officer Lively requested a female officer who came to the scene to search Mrs. Palmour and handcuff her.
Mr. Palmour, an attorney and solicitor of an adjoining county, was behind his wife in another vehicle. He saw her pulled over, went down the road to turn around, and returned. By this time, the second officer was at the scene. Mr. Palmour testified that he asked to speak with Mrs. Palmour and was refused. Officer Lively, however, testified that the only request he made at the scene was to be allowed to take her home. She had their three small children in the van with her and the officer told Mr. Palmour that he could take the van and the children and meet his wife at the Sheriff's office. 2
Mrs. Palmour was taken into the Sheriff's office where Officer Lively activated the Intoximeter 3000 and asked her to blow into it. She again refused to be tested. Officer Lively then executed the affidavit which resulted in the six-month suspension of her driver's license, the subject of review below and here.
2. While Mrs. Palmour does not dispute her refusal to be tested, she contends that she had the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rackoff v. State
...test under the Implied Consent Law. See, e.g., State v. Boger, 253 Ga.App. 412(1), 559 S.E.2d 176 (2002); Bowman v. Palmour, 209 Ga.App. 270, 271(2), 433 S.E.2d 380 (1993); Rawl v. State, 192 Ga.App. 57, 58(4), 383 S.E.2d 903 (1989). The first case to examine the issue was Davis v. Pope, 12......
-
Quigg v. Ga. Prof'l Standards Comm'n, A17A1885.
...the evidence presented at the administrative hearing in the light most favorable to the agency's decision. Bowman v. Palmour , 209 Ga. App. 270, 270 (1), 433 S.E.2d 380 (1993). So viewed, the evidence showed that Quigg held a teaching certificate in Georgia at all times relevant to the pres......
-
Dept. of Community Health v. Pruitt Corp.
...or administering the matter under consideration). 16. See Emory Univ., supra at 898(2), 401 S.E.2d 691. 17. Bowman v. Palmour, 209 Ga.App. 270(1), 433 S.E.2d 380 (1993). 18. See generally Ga. Real Estate Comm. v. Hooks, 139 Ga.App. 34, 36, 227 S.E.2d 864 19. See Ga. Dept. of Community Healt......
-
Ga. Prof'l Standards Comm'n v. Wilson-Williams
...the evidence presented at the administrative hearing in the light most favorable to the agency's decision. Bowman v. Palmour , 209 Ga. App. 270, 270 (1), 433 S.E.2d 380 (1993). In this regard, "under the abuse of discretion standard, we review legal holdings de novo, and we uphold factual f......