Court of Appeals upholds MD breath tests

State prosecutors scored a victory yesterday when the Court of Appeals upheld Maryland's practice of suspending driver's licenses of suspected drunk drivers based on the results of approved alcohol breath tests.

The state's high court rejected the licensee's argument that the margin of error in such tests must be factored in his favor.

"Summary suspension of driver's licenses based on reliable test results exceeding the designated acceptable limit as measured by approved breath test instruments acts as a deterrent and promptly removes the drunk driver from the roads," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the court.

On a direct appeal from judicial review of an administrative ruling, the attorney general challenged findings regarding the sufficiency of the state's breath analysis machines as evidence at administrative hearings for automatic license suspensions.

The driver in the case, Michael Lytle, was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol in March 2001. Police gave him a breathalyzer test and, after obtaining two readings above .10, the legal limit at the time, issued an order of license suspension.

At a Motor Vehicle Administration hearing, Lytle argued that, because of a recognized variance in breathalyzer test results, the state failed to show he was legally intoxicated at the time of his arrest.

"It's a big variance," Lytle, now a practicing attorney, said yesterday, noting the margins used in the state toxicologist's regulations. "That's 10 percent."

The administrative law judge agreed and issued an opinion concluding that the state failed to prove Lytle's blood alcohol level was .10 or greater.

The MVA appealed to the circuit court. Because it could not find any state case law on point, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court, relying on an Alaska case, said a margin of error must be applied "when determining the somewhat strict statutory standard of license revocation."

The MVA again appealed the case.

One of the reasons the state appealed, according to Assistant Attorney General Leight Collins, was that prosecutors were concerned about the impact of the ALJ and circuit court rulings.

Lytle argued that Maryland's statute was, like other states, a so- called "blood alcohol content" (BAC) statute rather than a "test result" statute.

But the Court of Appeals disagreed. "Interpreting the statute as an 'alcohol content' statute requiring the margin of error to be factored into the final BAC reading would impose significant additional administrative and fiscal burdens upon the state," Harrell wrote.

The Court of Appeals also discussed the Legislature's intent to create a system for swift action against suspected drunk drivers.

"The Legislature chose a means for rendering an accurate reading of alcohol content and then drafted a statute creating procedures for taking the readings and imposing penalties based upon those readings," the court said.

"Our examination of the pertinent statutory language, its place in the statutory scheme and even the relevant legislative history reveals a result opposite that reached by Lytle," Harrell wrote. "Lytle's argument is based on snippets of language shorn from their contextual roots."

Although the state's legal limit has been reduced to .08 since the start of the case, Collins said the reasoning of the opinion released yesterday still applies.

"We're pleased with the result," he said.

The Court of Appeals, focusing on the legislative intent of the statute, said the intent of Maryland's Legislature was clear.

"The stated purpose of the statute and the deliberate crafting of the regulatory scheme indicate that the statute was intended to create expedient procedures that swiftly would impose penalties for drunk driving irrespective of any parallel potential criminal processes or penalties," Harrell wrote.

The court also rejected that quick suspensions of drivers' licenses violate due process requirements.

"The statutory scheme makes suspension decision relatively automatic, predicated upon 'scientifically accepted objective criteria,' and prompt post-suspension review is guaranteed by the provision of an administrative hearing," the court reasoned.

The case was remanded to the circuit court with instructions to reverse the ruling by the Office of Administrative Hearings and to conduct a new hearing.

WHAT THE COURT HELD

Case: Motor Vehicle Administration v. Lytle, CA No. 68, Sept. Term 2002. Reported. Opinion by Harrell, J. Filed April 8, 2003, 2003.

Issue: Does a general "margin of error" of the "accepted scientific range of accuracy" of a type of breathalyzer equipment apply in cases of driving while intoxicated?

Holding: No. The statute and regulatory scheme indicate that the law was intended to create expedient procedures to swiftly impose penalties for drunk driving irrespective of any parallel potential criminal processes or penalties.

Counsel: Asst. AG Leight D. Collins for petitioner; Michael P. Lytle for respondent.

Copyright 2003 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.