My client was looking at losing his license for 120 days or paying $1000 for a ignition interlock for one year.
The allegations were that the police officer came upon a single vehicle accident. My client allegedly ran into a tree. Client allegedly refused the breast test for alcohol and his permanent license was confiscated. He kindly asked for a hearing before an administrative law judge.
I prepared as best I could with the limited information that I had and appeared with him at the hearing. I thought that I had a strong case because the DR 15 A (temporary license issued to the driver) did not specify location of the offense and the policeman involved was a county officer and not a state trooper. County officers have jurisdiction generally limited to their county, state police have jurisdiction throughout Maryland) I was ready to argue that the motor vehicle administration failed to prove that it was a police officer because we do not know what what County this occurred in and this police officer may have been outside of his County and therefore acting as a private citizen.
My hopes were dashed when into evidence came an accident report as well as the drunk driving information report. Those of those had a street address and the County. I was surprised to see those pieces of evidence. I objected but really had no grounds off the top of my head. My objection was overruled. My first argument went down the tubes.
I was prepared and still had a second argument. The temporary license was not signed by the officer or my client. I argued that my client suffered prejudice because he lost his privilege to drive without the benefit of notice and a hearing. This judge argues that the only issues before him were the seven issues specifically listed in the Maryland transportation article 16 205.1. He felt that due process is not something which is available at these hearings. His belief was that the Court of Appeals was also limiting all arguments to the seven issues. My second argument failed.
My third argument was a winner. My client spoke maybe 10 words of English and did not understand it and could not read it. I argued that my client was not fully advised as to the sanctions for taking a test or refusing a breath test as required by statute and did not make a knowing decision which I believe Foreman versus MVA stands for. The judge agreed with this argument. The judge took no action against my client's license and further my client is entitled to a refund of the $125 hearing fee.