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

Benson C. Boyd, Petitioner Below, Petitioner
v.
Everett Frazier, Commissioner, West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent Below, Respondent

No. 21-1012

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

January 18, 2023

Berkeley County 21-AA-1

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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's driver's license was administratively revoked for DUI, and he requested an administrative hearing before the OAH. One point of contention between the parties at the hearing was whether petitioner requested a blood test. The investigating officer, Deputy William Wilhelm of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, noted on the DUI Information Sheet that he directed that a blood sample be taken and that petitioner did not request one.^[2] At the hearing, Deputy Wilhelm could not recall whether petitioner requested a blood test or merely acquiesced to the officer's request that he produce a blood sample, but he also stated,

In my mind, it was me asking him if he was agreeing for it . . [T]he way I remember it is I asked him if he was going to be willing to take a blood draw, and he said yes. I don't know if he was one of those where he definitely wanted to, or if he was just agreeing with me

Petitioner, on the other hand, testified, "I don't remember him saying, 'Do you want a blood test' ever. I said, 'Hey, give me a blood test. I want to clear this matter up.'" Also, after his

1

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....