BRADFORD OWUSU v. MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Hotten, November 20, 2018,
Implied Consent – A driver who refuses an alcohol concentration test after having been read the DR-15 Advice of Rights cannot have his privilege to drive restored just because the officer reading the DR-15 gave an incomplete summary afterwards.
Concur – Watts joins in judgment only
Facts:
In 2017, Owusu was stopped by Montgomery County police after they observed him driving erratically. Owusu smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes with slurred speech. When he failed SFST, he was transported to the station and read the DR-15 Advice of Rights.
Owusu did not respond, at which point an officer stated:
“I saw your Metro ID in your wallet, you drive for Metro? You realize if you don’t take the test, your driver’s license is going to be suspended for 270 days, if you don’t take this test. And if you take it, and it’s a high blow, you blow anything 0.08 or higher, you 8 get suspended for 180 days. So, if you take the test and you don’t do well, it’s a 180 day suspension. If you don’t take the test, your license gets suspended for 270 days. And because I assume that you drive a bus for Metro based on your CDL and the ID you have in your wallet, that means this is going to affect your work. So this can affect your work for 180 days or it can affect your work for 270 days. It’s completely up to you. Would you like to take the test or not?”
In summarizing the DR-15 consequences, the officer did not repeat that Owusu’s CDL would be disqualified for a year if he refused the test. Owusu did not respond and this was treated as a refusal.
When MVA suspended Owusu’s privilege to drive, he requested a hearing to challenge the suspension.
At the hearing, he argued that he was misled by the officer because the officer’s summary of the DR-15 didn’t include that his CDL would be disqualified for a year. He also argued that the DR-15 failed to advise him of the length of time that interlock would have to be on his car.
Owusu lost his administrative hearing and his appeal, then requested review by the Court of Appeals.
Held:
Implied Consent – An officer requesting/compelling an alcohol concentration test “shall advise the person” of the consequences for refusing and the consequences for an alcohol concentration at certain levels
Implied Consent – The DR-15 Advice of Rights contains the information required by law to be read
From the Case: Owusu “was fully advised of sanctions under Transp. § 16-
205.1. The officer’s reading of the DR-15 guaranteed full advisement of administrative sanctions.”
Advisement – An alcohol concentration test refusal/acceptance can be invalidated if the officer gives false or misleading advice about the driver’s rights.
From the Case: The Court held that while the officers did “misstate the implication on Owusu’s work by stating ‘this can affect your work for 180 days or it can affect your work for 270 days.’ In reality, Owusu’s test refusal implicated his work for a year [because he held a CDL].” However, “the body camera recording reveals that Owusu never expressed confusion about the sanctions that officers expressed, nor did Owusu indicate that officers’ collateral statements misled him during the administrative hearing.”
From the Case: “Because the information in the DR-15 provided full advisement and the officers’ verbal assertions were not misleading or false, Petitioner’s statutory claim regarding full advisement is without merit.”