Dale v. Odum

Decision Date11 February 2014
Docket Number12–1509.,Nos. 12–1403,s. 12–1403
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesSteven O. DALE, Acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. James A. ODUM, Respondent Below, Respondent. Steven O. Dale, Acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Chad Doyle, Respondent Below, Respondent.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. “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) 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, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996).

2. “Evidentiary findings made at an administrative hearing should not be reversed unless they are clearly wrong.” Syl. Pt. 1, Francis O. Day Co., Inc. v. Director, Div. of Envtl. Prot., 191 W.Va. 134, 443 S.E.2d 602 (1994).

3. “Police officers may stop a vehicle to investigate if they have an articulable reasonable suspicion that the vehicle is subject to seizure or a person in the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” Syl. Pt. 1, in part, State v. Stuart, 192 W.Va. 428, 452 S.E.2d 886 (1994).

4. “A law enforcement officer acting outside of his or her territorial jurisdiction has the same authority to arrest as does a private citizen and may make an extraterritorial arrest under those circumstances in which a private citizen would be authorized to make an arrest.” Syl. Pt. 2, State ex. rel State v. Gustke, 205 W.Va. 72, 516 S.E.2d 283 (1999).

5. “Under the common law, a private citizen is authorized to arrest another who commits a misdemeanor in his or her presence when that misdemeanor constitutes a breach of the peace.” Syl. Pt. 3, State ex. rel State v. Gustke, 205 W.Va. 72, 516 S.E.2d 283 (1999).

6. “Driving while under the influence of alcohol, a controlled substance or drugs, as prohibited by W.Va.Code § 17C–5–2(d) (1996) (Repl.Vol.1996), constitutes a breach of the peace. Consequently, it is a misdemeanor offense for which a private citizen may arrest.” Syl. Pt. 4, State ex. rel State v. Gustke, 205 W.Va. 72, 516 S.E.2d 283 (1999).

7. “In an administrative hearing conducted by the Division of Motor Vehicles, a statement of an arresting officer, as described in W. Va.Code § 17C–5A–1(b) (2004) (Repl.Vol.2004), that is in the possession of the Division and is offered into evidence on behalf of the Division, is admissible pursuant to W. Va.Code § 29A–5–2(b) (1964) (Repl.Vol.2002).” Syl. Pt. 3, Crouch v. West Virginia Div. Of Motor Vehicles, 219 W.Va. 70, 631 S.E.2d 628 (2006).

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Janet E. James, Esq., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Elaine L. Skorich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, for Petitioner DMV.

Randy D. Hoover, Esq., Beckley, David R. Pence, Carter Zerbe & Associates, PLLC, Charleston, for Respondent James A. Odum.

James T. Kratovil, Esq., Kratovil Law Offices PLLC, Charles Town, for Respondent Chad Doyle.

The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.

Justice BENJAMIN concurs, in part, and dissents, in part, and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases are before this Court upon appeal of final orders of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County denying petitions for judicial review filed by the petitioner, Steven O. Dale, Acting Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles 1 (hereinafter DMV).2 In these cases, the DMV revoked the driver's licenses of the respondents, James A. Odum and Chad Doyle, following their arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol. The revocations were reversed following administrative hearings because the hearing examiners found that the investigatory stops of the respondents' vehicles were not lawful. The decision of the hearing examiner was upheld by the circuit court in each case.

Upon consideration of the parties' briefs, oral argument and the submitted records, as well as the applicable statutory and case law, this Court finds that the evidentiary and factual findings of the hearing examiners were clearly wrong and that the evidence in the records establishes that the investigatory stops of the respondents' vehicles were valid. Accordingly, the final orders are reversed, and these cases are remanded to the circuit court for reinstatement of the respective DMV orders revoking the respondents' licenses to operate a motor vehicle.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

These cases were consolidated because they present the same issue on appeal. The relevant facts and procedural background for each case, however, are set forth separately below.

A. Case No. 12–1403

During the early morning hours of September 15, 2010, Patrolman Nicholas M. Manning of the Sophia Police Department observed a vehicle driven by Respondent James A. Odum (hereinafter Mr. Odum) on Robert C. Byrd Drive in the jurisdictional limits of the City of Beckley, West Virginia. According to Patrolman Manning, Mr. Odum ran a red light and drove into oncoming traffic almost striking his (Patrolman Manning's) vehicle. Patrolman Manning turned around and stopped Mr. Odum's vehicle. After approaching the vehicle and observing Mr. Odum, Patrolman Manning contacted the Beckley Police Department by calling the Emergency Operations Center. During proceedings below, Patrolman Manning testified that he believed a mutual aid agreement existed between the Sophia Police Department and the Beckley Police Department, giving him the authority to make a traffic stop within the city limits of Beckley.

Corporal Steven Whitt of the Beckley Police Department was dispatched to the scene. After speaking with Patrolman Manning, Corporal Whitt approached Mr. Odum's vehicle. According to Corporal Whitt, he smelled the distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from inside Mr. Odum's vehicle, and Mr. Odum indicated that he had been drinking. Corporal Whitt then asked Mr. Odum to exit his vehicle and participate in some field sobriety tests. According to Corporal Whitt, Mr. Odum's speech was slow and slurred, and his eyes were glassy and appeared to be bloodshot. Mr. Odum failed the field sobriety tests; a preliminary breath test showed a .168 blood alcohol level.3 Corporal Whitt then took Mr. Odum into custody for driving under the influence of alcohol and transported him to the Beckley Police Department. While at the Police Department, Mr. Odum refused to sign an implied consent statement 4 and twice refused to submit to a secondary chemical test. Corporal Whitt completed the DUI Information Sheet at the police station. He indicated on the form that Mr. Odum's vehicle was stopped for “straddling center line.”

Subsequently, by order dated October 13, 2010, the DMV revoked Mr. Odum's driver's license for driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing a secondary chemical test. Mr. Odum timely requested an administrative hearing which was held on July 27, 2011. At the hearing, the evidence offered was the testimony of Corporal Whitt and Patrolman Manning and the DUI Information Sheet completed by Corporal Whitt. Mr. Odum did not testify but counsel on his behalf submitted an affidavit from the Beckley Chief of Police stating that there was no mutual aid agreement with the town of Sophia.

On December 21, 2011, the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter “OAH”) 5 entered a final order reversing the revocation of Mr. Odum's driver's license. The hearing examiner concluded that the evidence did not show that there had been a valid stop of Mr. Odum's vehicle and, therefore, did not establish that Mr. Odum had been lawfully arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The decision was based on the fact that Mr. Odum was stopped by a police officer acting outside his territorial jurisdiction and there was no mutual aid agreement between the Sophia Police Department and the Beckley Police Department. Further, the hearing examiner found that the recorded information on the DUI Information Sheet regarding the reason for the stop was materially inconsistent with Patrolman Manning's testimony at the administrative hearing regarding his initial encounter with Mr. Odum's vehicle.

Thereafter, on January 23, 2012, the DMV filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.6 A hearing was held on May 24, 2012. By order entered October 25, 2012, the circuit court concluded that the OAH did not err as a matter of law in reversing the order revoking Mr. Odum's driver's license and, thus, denied the petition for judicial review.

B. Case No. 12–1509

In the early morning hours of November 5, 2010, Trooper Martin Glende of the West Virginia State Police was contacted by Charles Town Police Patrolman Benjamin Anderson regarding a possible intoxicated driver whom he had stopped on State Route 51 near the intersection of Jefferson Avenue in the city limits of Charles Town, West Virginia. Upon arrival at the scene, Trooper Glende approached the stopped vehicle, which was being operated by Respondent Chad Doyle (hereinafter Mr. Doyle). According to Trooper Glende, Mr. Doyle told him that he was coming from the race track and had consumed approximately five beers. Trooper Glende observed that Mr. Doyle's eyes were bloodshot, and he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Trooper Glende instructed Mr. Doyle to exit his vehicle so he could conduct field sobriety tests. Trooper Glende administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand test, and a preliminary breath test; Mr. Doyle failed all of the tests. Trooper Glende then arrested Mr. Doyle for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol and took him to the Charles Town...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Frazier v. Talbert
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 15, 2021
    ...believes the findings to be clearly wrong." Syl. Pt. 1, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996).Syl. Pt. 1, Dale v. Odum, 233 W. Va. 601, 760 S.E.2d 415 (2014).Further,[u]pon judicial review of a contested case under the West Virginia Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 2......
  • Dale v. Ciccone
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2014
    ...under the influence of alcohol....” W.Va.Code § 17C–5A–2(f)(2).8 As this Court stated in Dale v. Odum, ––– W.Va. ––––, 760 S.E.2d 415, 2014 WL 641990 (W.Va. Feb. 11, 2014) (memorandum decision), “absent a valid investigatory stop, a finding that the ensuing arrest was lawful cannot be made.......
  • Reed v. Hill, 14–0103.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2015
    ...does not require the observation period be made by the person who administers the Intoximeter test.” Id.1 See, e.g., Dale v. Odum, 233 W.Va. 601, 760 S.E.2d 415 (2014) (failed the field sobriety tests and preliminary breath test); Carroll v. Stump, 217 W.Va. 748, 619 S.E.2d 261 (2005) (fail......
  • Frazier v. Bragg
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 16, 2020
    ...believes the findings to be clearly wrong." Syl. Pt. 1, Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996).Syl. Pt. 1, Dale v. Odum, 233 W.Va. 601, 760 S.E.2d 415 (2014). Further,[u]pon judicial review of a contested case under the West Virginia Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT