Boyd v. Frazier
| Decision Date | 18 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 21-1012 |
| Parties | Benson C. Boyd, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Everett Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent Below, Respondent |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Petitioner Benson C. Boyd appeals the circuit court's November 16 2021, order affirming the order of the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") that affirmed the revocation of his driver's license for driving under the influence of controlled substances ("DUI").[1] Upon our review, we determine that oral argument is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate. See W.Va. R. App. Proc. 21.
Petitioner, on the other hand, testified, " Also, after his release from jail on bond, petitioner obtained a urinalysis that tested for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and phencyclidine. The test results were negative. Petitioner sought to admit this negative drug screen at the hearing, but respondent objected on the grounds that it was hearsay and had not been authenticated. The OAH sustained those objections.
Another point of contention between the parties bearing relevance to the blood test issue concerned a pill bottle that Deputy Wilhelm observed initially in petitioner's glove compartment as petitioner was locating documents requested by the officer. According to Deputy Wilhelm, petitioner said that the bottle held his diabetes medication. After petitioner failed every field sobriety test administered and was placed under arrest, the officer searched petitioner's vehicle and noted that the bottle was no longer in the glove compartment. Deputy Wilhelm asked petitioner where the bottle went, and petitioner claimed not to know. Petitioner also reportedly changed his story regarding the bottle's contents, claiming that it contained medication to ease pain that he had borrowed from a friend after using all of his own. Deputy Wilhelm searched around petitioner's vehicle for the bottle and located one a short distance away. The label on the bottle was worn, so Deputy Wilhelm could not determine what medication the now-empty bottle once held, but he could tell that petitioner's name was not on the label. Deputy Wilhelm surmised that petitioner tossed the bottle from his vehicle while the officer was running petitioner's information in his cruiser at the beginning of the traffic stop. At the hearing, petitioner denied that the bottle found on the roadside was his and denied that it was the same one observed by the officer in the glove compartment. Petitioner claimed, rather, that the bottle was still in his vehicle when he picked his vehicle up after his release from jail.
In its order affirming the revocation of petitioner's license, the OAH deemed petitioner's testimony on the issue of whether he requested a blood test not credible. The OAH pointed to Deputy Wilhelm's credible testimony that petitioner threw the pill bottle from his car, which the OAH found evidenced "not only a consciousness of guilt [on petitioner's part] . . . but a willingness . . . to deceive in order to avoid responsibility." The OAH also noted that petitioner's testimony on the blood test issue conflicted with Deputy Wilhelm's "recorded recollection" of the event on the DUI Information Sheet, which documented that petitioner did not request a blood test but that he was willing to submit to one. Regarding petitioner's urinalysis, the OAH reiterated that the results were not admitted into evidence and found that they were "not relevant as no chain of custody was established to prove that" petitioner provided the sample and that no witness testified to the methodology employed or results. The OAH also noted that there is no requirement that a secondary chemical test be completed to prove that a motorist was DUI for purposes of revocation, and it found sufficient other evidence of petitioner's impairment. Namely, Deputy Wilhelm initiated a stop of petitioner's vehicle because he almost struck a tow truck and crossed the center line twice. Once stopped, petitioner exhibited "[n]umerous impairment detection clues" while attempting the field sobriety tests, and he displayed consciousness of guilt by tossing the pill bottle from his car.
Petitioner appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the OAH's decision, and he now appeals to this Court. "On appeal of an administrative order from a circuit court, this Court is bound by the statutory standards contained in W.Va. Code § 29A-5-4(a)[[3] and reviews questions of law presented de novo; findings of fact by the administrative officer are accorded deference unless the reviewing court believes the findings to be clearly wrong." Syl. Pt. 1, Frazier v. Talbert, 245 W.Va. 293, 858 S.E.2d 918 (2021) (citations omitted).
Petitioner argues in his first of two assignments of error that he requested a blood test, that the circuit court erred in concluding that his due process rights were not violated by the failure to provide the requested blood test, and that his license revocation should be reversed as a consequence of the failure to provide the blood test. We have acknowledged that West Virginia Code § 17C-5-9 "provides a driver with a statutory right to a blood test when that driver has properly invoked that right," Dale v. Painter 234 W.Va. 343, 349, 765 S.E.2d 232, 238 (2014), and in Syllabus Point 6 of Frazier v. Talbert, 245 W.Va. 293, 858 S.E.2d 918 (2021), we identified the factors that must be considered in determining the consequences that should flow from a failure to provide a driver with a blood test demanded under West Virginia Code § 17C-5-9. But this statute-and the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial