Smell of alcohol alone created adequate suspicion

A “moderate” aroma of alcohol emanating from a driver provided a sufficient basis for a police officer to conduct sobriety tests, Maryland’s top court held unanimously, overturning a judge’s conclusion that the smell alone did not arouse reasonable suspicion.

The Court of Appeals said Baltimore County Circuit Judge Timothy J. Martin erroneously engaged in a constitutional analysis of whether the officer had “reasonable articulable suspicion” that motorist Adam Leigh Shea had too much to drink in ordering field-sobriety and breathalyzer tests, which found he was over the legal limit.

“Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion, under a Fourth Amendment analysis, to conduct field sobriety tests is simply irrelevant to whether the officer possessed reasonable grounds to request the breathalyzer test,” Judge Mary Ellen Barbera wrote for the high court.

Instead, Maryland law imposes a valid and lower suspicion standard, requiring only that an officer have “reasonable grounds to believe” a motorist is impaired by alcohol in order to require sobriety tests, the court held.

In its 7-0 decision, the court also said Martin failed to give due deference to the administrative law judge’s decision that the odor gave police officer William Phelps “reasonable grounds” to suspect Shea was impaired by alcohol.

On the night of April 24, 2007, Phelps pulled Shea over for driving without a seat belt. During the stop, Phelps said he smelled a “moderate odor” of an alcoholic beverage and administered a standard field sobriety test.

Phelps said he arrested Shea after he failed the test.

At the police station, Shea was given a breathalyzer test, which revealed he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.18, well above the legal limit of 0.08. Phelps handed Shea a Motor Vehicle Administration order automatically suspending his license.

Shea appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings, challenging the officer’s ordering of the tests.

But the administrative law judge found Phelps had reasonable grounds for the testing based on the smell of alcohol. The judge ordered Shea’s driver’s license suspended for 90 days but lifted the suspension when Shea agreed to participate in the Ignition Interlock Program.

The interlock system requires a driver to pass a test for the presence of alcohol in the driver’s breath for his or her car to start.

Martin overturned the administrative judge’s ruling, holding that Phelps lacked the level of suspicion required under the 4th Amendment because the smell could have resulted from Shea having consumed a harmless amount of alcohol or from someone having spilled a drink on his clothing.

The Motor Vehicle Administration sought review by the Court of Appeals.

The high court said the administrative law judge had sufficient evidence to find that Phelps had reasonable grounds to test Shea.

“The ‘moderate odor’ of alcohol alone may have been enough to permit Officer Phelps reasonably to suspect that respondent [Shea] was driving while under the influence of or impaired by alcohol,” Barbera wrote. “Given the low quantum of suspicion necessary for ‘reasonable grounds,’ we hold that the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s final decision.”