Maryland Montgomery County Driving Intoxicated Restricted Improper Sobriety Test Lawyers Attorneys

ROBERT CHARLES EMBREY V. MOTOR VEHICLEninety days. She rejected the petitioner's request
ADMINISTRATIONthat the suspension be modified to a restricted
COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLANDlicense, reasoning that the prior suspension of the
September 15, 1995, FILEDpetitioner's license for a test failure, occurring
On March 25, 1994, Robert Charles Embrey, thewithin five years of the instant failure, rendered
petitioner, was stopped by a Montgomery Countyhim ineligible for a modified or restricted license. 
police officer for driving while intoxicated. TheThe petitioner sought judicial review of that
officer observed the petitioner driving his car at adecision in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
high rate of speed. After stopping the petitioner,County, which affirmed the decision of the ALJ. 
the officer noted a strong odor of alcohol,The petitioner then timely filed a petition for
whereupon he directed the petitioner to performcertiorari.
certain field sobriety tests.Issue:
As a result of his poor performance on the tests,- Whether the issuance of a restricted license to
the petitioner was placed under arrest andthe petitioners amounts to suspension of license
charged with driving while intoxicated.  Thepursuant to § 16-205.1?
petitioner agreed to take a breath test. BasedUnless there is a license suspension, there is
upon the test result, which indicated an alcoholnothing to modify or any need to issue a
concentration of 0.13, and pursuant to §restrictive license. Consistent with the provisions
16-205.1(b)(3), the arresting officer, inter alia,of § 16-205.1(m).  In light of the clear legislative
confiscated the petitioner's driver's license andintent behind the Administrative Per Se law, §
served him with an order of suspension. As was16-205.1, it would be "unreasonable, illogical, or
his right, see § 16-205.1(f), the petitionerinconsistent with common sense" to construe that
requested an administrative hearing to showsection to mean that the prior administrative
cause why his driver's license should not beproceeding resulting in the petitioner being issued a
suspended.  The petitioner then testified that herestricted license did not also result in a suspension
needs a license to attend alcohol prevention orof the petitioner's license. That interpretation
treatment programs and for his employment. Hewould wholly undermine the Legislature's efforts
acknowledged that, in 1991, he had received ato combat drunk driving.  Unless there is a license
restricted license as a result of a prior proceedingsuspension, there is nothing to modify or any
pursuant to § 16-205.1. The petitioner argued,need to issue a restrictive license.  Hence this
however, that, although this was his secondcourt affirmed the issuance of the prior restricted
offense, a suspension was not mandatorylicense meant that there had been a suspension
because he never was suspended for his firstwithin the meaning of § 205.1.
offense.  Noting that, on the prior occasions, heThe court affirmed the decision that the driver
had been issued a thirty day restricted license, hewas not entitled to a restricted license after he
points out that his driver's record reflected nowas arrested for driving under the influence of
suspension of his license on that occasion. Believingalcohol.
that the petitioner was not eligible for a modifiedDisclaimer:
or restricted license, having resolved the issues toThese summaries are provided by the SRIS Law
be decided at the hearing against him, the ALJGroup.  They represent the firm's unofficial views
suspended the petitioner's driver's license forof the Justices' opinions.