Hill v. Motor Vehicle Admin.
| Decision Date | 26 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 82,2009.,82 |
| Citation | 415 Md. 231,999 A.2d 1019 |
| Parties | James E. HILLv.MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Leonard R. Stamm (Johanna Cohen Leshner, Goldstein & Stamm, P.A. of Greenbelt, MD), on brief, for petitioner.
Dore J. Lebowitz, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
Petitioner James E. Hill, the holder of a commercial driver's license (“CDL”), was detained by an officer of the Charles County Sheriff's Department on suspicion of drunk driving. During the traffic stop, Hill was advised of his right to refuse to take an alcohol concentration test (commonly called a “breathalyzer” test), and of the sanctions that would be imposed against him if he either failed or refused to take the test. These advisements came via the recitation of a standard form prepared by Respondent, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (“MVA”). Hill refused the test, and was subjected to an administrative hearing, before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings, in order to determine the sanctions that would be imposed against him.
During the hearing, Hill argued that he had been improperly advised of his rights as required by both due process and the relevant provisions of the Transportation Article. The ALJ found that Hill had been properly advised of his rights, and imposed on Hill a 120-day suspension of all driving privileges, modified to allow him to participate in an Ignition Interlock System Program (“Interlock Program”). His CDL was also disqualified for one year. Hill sought judicial review of the ALJ's decision in the Circuit Court for Charles County, which affirmed the ruling below. We granted certiorari to consider the following question: 1
Whether the Petitioner was not “fully advised” of the administrative sanctions for refusing a breath test and was misled, where Petitioner was advised that he would be eligible for “a modification of the suspension of issuance of a restrictive license” if petitioner participated in the ignition interlock program but was not informed that a one-year CDL disqualification could not be modified?
We shall hold that Hill was properly advised of his rights, as required by both due process and the statute at issue, and we shall affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Charles County.
On the evening of May 30, 2008, Petitioner James E. Hill was stopped by Charles County Sheriff's Deputy Robert Herbert while Hill was driving his pickup truck through the town of Pomfret. Hill, the owner of an excavating and land development company, was coming from a job site. Hill was the holder of a Class A CDL, which allowed him to operate both commercial and passenger vehicles (though the truck driven by Hill at the time of the stop was not a commercial vehicle). Herbert noted that Hill had been weaving in and out of his traffic lane while driving, at one point crossing the center line. According to Herbert, Hill had the odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred his speech, and appeared “unsteady on his feet.” Hill would later testify that he had consumed several servings of beer approximately two hours prior to Herbert's stop.
After administering field sobriety tests, Herbert took Hill into custody on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Herbert advised Hill of his rights under Section 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article by reading the entirety of MVA form DR-15 to Hill at the scene. Form DR-15 was designed by the MVA to explain to persons detained under Section 16-205.1 that they have the right to refuse an alcohol concentration test, as well as to explain the potential sanctions that could arise from either taking and “failing” the test (i.e showing a systemic alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater) or refusing to take the test at all. In pertinent part, the form read as follows:
(Emphasis altered and added.) Hill refused to submit to the alcohol concentration test. After hearing the refusal, Herbert transported Hill to the Charles County Jail, where Hill again refused to take the test.
Ultimately, Hill requested an administrative hearing, which was held before an ALJ on August 29, 2008, and October 29, 2008. At the hearing, Hill argued that he was misled by the DR-15 form, because the form did not properly advise him that his CDL would be disqualified for one year regardless of whether he participated in the Interlock Program. The ALJ found that Herbert had reasonable grounds to stop Hill and to ask Hill to submit to an alcohol test. The ALJ further found that Herbert had read the DR-15 form to Hill, and that Hill refused to submit to the test after being properly advised of his rights. The ALJ modified Hill's automatic 120-day suspension with respect to his non-commercial driver's rights to allow Hill to participate in the Interlock Program, and also imposed the mandatory one year CDL disqualification.
Hill sought judicial review of the ALJ's decision in the Circuit Court for Charles County, which affirmed the ALJ's decision. In reviewing the administrative decision, the Circuit Court found that the ALJ's factual rulings were supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ's conclusions of law were “legally sound.” We granted certiorari to consider Hill's claims. See Hill v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 410 Md. 165, 978 A.2d 245 (2009) (granting certiorari).
Judicial review of an administrative agency's decision “is narrow; it is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's findings and conclusions, and to determin[ing] if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” Md. Aviation Admin. v. Noland, 386 Md. 556, 571, 873 A.2d 1145, 1154 (2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “We review an administrative agency's decision under the same statutory standards as the Circuit Court.” Gigeous v. E. Corr. Inst., 363 Md. 481, 495, 769 A.2d 912, 921 (2001).
Hill's challenges relate entirely to issues of law-namely, whether the DR-15 form as written fails to comport with the requirements of due process or the requirements of the Transportation Article. He does not challenge either the ALJ's findings of fact or the Circuit Court's review of those facts. Because there are “no disputes of fact in the case at bar, our review is limited to determining ... if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Jaigobin, 413 Md. 191, 196, 991 A.2d 1251, 1254 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Before we consider the substance of Hill's claims, it is worthwhile to set forth clearly the sanctions under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Deering
...not amount to a refusal to take the test. Accordingly, there was no violation of TR § 16–205.1. 24.See Hill v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 415 Md. 231, 239–42, 999 A.2d 1019 (2010) (information provided in the DR–15 form was sufficient to safeguard the detainee's right to due process); Ha......
-
Mercer v. Thomas B. Finan Ctr.
...of the General Assembly." Johnson v. Maryland Dep't of Health , 470 Md. 648, 674, 236 A.3d 574 (2020) ; Hill v. Motor Vehicle Admin. , 415 Md. 231, 247, 999 A.2d 1019 (2010). When the language of a statute is " ‘clear and unambiguous, our inquiry ordinarily ends there.’ " Hill v. Motor Vehi......
-
Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Deering, 52
...not amount to a refusal to take the test. Accordingly, there was no violation of TR §16-205.1. 24. See Hill v. Motor Vehicle Administration, 415 Md. 231, 239-42, 999 A.2d 1019 (2010) (information provided in the DR-15 form was sufficient to safeguard the detainee's right to due process); Ha......
-
Ins. Comm'r For State v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co..
...v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 67–69, 729 A.2d 376 (1999)) (Internal citations and footnotes omitted); see also Hill v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 415 Md. 231, 239, 999 A.2d 1019 (2010); Maryland Transp. Auth. v. King, 369 Md. 274, 288, 799 A.2d 1246 (2002); Gigeous v. E. Corr. Inst., 363 Md. 481, 495, 7......