Case Title: Miller v. Wyoming

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-12-0033

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
RICKY D. MILLER v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION2012 WY 115Case Number: S-12-0033Decided: 08/31/2012This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.  
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2012
 
RICKY 
D. MILLER,Appellant(Petitioner),v.STATE OF WYOMING, 
ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF 
TRANSPORTATION,Appellee(Respondent).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Platte County
The 
Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge 
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Cole 
N. Sherard, Wheatland, WY.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney 
General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Travis J. 
Kirchhefer, Assistant Attorney General.
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
HILL, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      Ricky D. Miller 
challenges a hearing examiner’s order upholding his per se driver’s license 
suspension.  Miller claims that his 
breath test was invalid because the test operator was not properly 
certified.  We 
affirm.
 
ISSUE
 
[¶2]      Miller presents 
one issue:
 
1.    
Was 
the Office of Administrative Hearing’s conclusions of law in error when it 
upheld the Wyoming Department of Transportation’s “per se” suspension of 
[Miller’s] driver’s license when the chemical breath test was performed by an 
operator who was no longer certified to perform a breath test analysis in 
accordance with W.S. § 31-6-105(a) and Wyoming Department of Health Rules and 
Regulations?
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      On October 15, 
2010 a Guernsey police officer arrested Ricky D. Miller for driving under the 
influence (DUI).  At the Platte 
County Detention Center Miller submitted to a breath test on an Intoximeter 
EC/IR machine.  Corporal Mandy Karr 
of the Platte County Sheriff’s Department performed the test, which showed that 
Miller’s blood alcohol content was .25%, well over the legal limit of .08%.  On the operation checklist for the test, 
Corporal Karr indicated that she was currently certified by the State of Wyoming 
as an operator.  On November 15, 
2010 the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) advised Miller that his 
driver’s license would be suspended for 90 days, whereafter he requested a 
contested case hearing.
 
[¶4]      The Office of 
Administrative Hearings (OAH) held a contested case hearing on February 3, 
2011.  At the hearing and in 
post-hearing briefing, Miller challenged the validity of his breath test, 
arguing that Corporal Karr did not have a valid operator’s permit because she 
did not perform the tests required to maintain her certification.  The OAH rejected Miller’s argument, 
stating:
 
            
The evidence in this case is not in dispute.  Corporal Karr obtained her certification 
as an EC/IR operator on December 17, 2009; she performed one test in January 
2010 and did not perform a test in February, March or April 2010.  Under the DOH Rules, Corporal Karr 
should have been decertified.  
However, DOH did not receive a request to decertify Corporal Karr and 
pursuant to DOH’s Rules Ch. 4, § 3, the permit shall be considered valid 
until the agency deems otherwise and provides notice of decertification.  Since DOH did not determine Corporal 
Karr should be decertified and did not notify her that her permit was invalid, 
Corporal Karr’s permit to perform chemical testing remained valid.  The proposed suspension action should 
therefore be upheld.
 
The 
district court affirmed the OAH decision, and this appeal 
followed.
 
[¶5]      Prior to this 
appeal, in April of 2011, Miller sent a letter to the Department of Health (DOH) 
requesting that Corporal Karr be retroactively decertified.  Miller 
v. Wyo. Dep’t of Health, 
2012 WY 65, 275 P.3d 1257 (Wyo. 2012).  
The DOH did not respond, and 
Miller subsequently filed a petition for review of agency inaction.  The district court denied the petition 
stating that Miller lacked standing and the matter was not ripe for review.  Miller appealed to this Court, and in an 
opinion published May 9, 2012, this Court affirmed the district court. We stated 
in our ruling:
 
It 
is apparent that WDOH’s Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol 
Testing, ch. 4, §§ 2(ii)(A) and 3 are not entirely consistent regarding whether 
the Department has a mandatory requirement to revoke certification for failure 
to properly maintain certification. And further adding to the uncertainty is § 4 
that states that once an officer is initially certified, his permit “shall be 
considered valid until the  state agency deems otherwise, and so notifies 
the permittee[].”  Nevertheless, the 
question the district court was faced with is: When it “accepts all facts stated 
in the complaint as being true and views them in the light most favorable to the 
[petitioner],” is it “certain from the face of the [petition] that the 
[petitioner] cannot assert any facts which would entitle him to relief?”  Herrig, 844 P.2d  at 490 
(citations omitted). In this case, in order to remedy Miller's and Gonzalez’s 
injury, then, the district court would have had to order the Department to 
decertify the officers’ permits retroactive to the dates their respective 
certifications lapsed.
 
While 
there is uncertainty in the WDOH’s Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis 
for Alcohol Testing regarding when and under what circumstances the Department 
has an obligation to revoke an officer's permit to perform chemical tests for 
failure to properly maintain his certification, we agree with the Department 
that there is “no authority to decertify officers retroactively, which is the 
only remedy that would provide the relief sought by Miller and 
Gonzalez.”
 
Miller, 
¶¶ 38-39, 275 P.3d  at 1265 (emphasis in original).
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW
 
[¶6]      In Vasco v. State, 2011 WY 100, ¶ 9, 
253 P.3d 515, 517 (Wyo. 2011) we said:
 
We 
accord no deference to a district court decision reviewing an administrative 
agency order. Batten v. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp. Drivers’ 
License 
Div., 
2007 WY 173, ¶ 6, 170 P.3d 1236, 1239 (Wyo. 2007). Instead, we review the 
case as if it came directly from the administrative agency. Id. As 
provided by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (LexisNexis 2009), we 
apply the substantial evidence standard when reviewing an agency's evidentiary 
findings. When the burdened party prevailed before the agency, we will determine 
if substantial evidence exists to support the finding for that party by 
considering whether there is relevant evidence in the entire record which a 
reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency’s conclusions.  Schouboe v. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp., 
2010 WY 119, ¶ 5, 238 P.3d 1246, 1248 (Wyo. 2010), quoting Dale v. S & S 
Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, 188 P.3d 554 (Wyo. 2008).
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶7]      In his only 
issue, Miller argues that his breath test was invalid because Corporal Karr’s 
operator permit was not valid.  Miller submits that the evidence 
established, and the OAH found, that Corporal Karr did not properly maintain her 
certification and should have been decertified.  Miller agrees that the OAH does not have 
the authority to decertify an operator because that specific task is vested with 
the DOH.  Nevertheless, Miller 
contends that the OAH has the authority to determine that a test was invalid 
because it was not conducted in compliance with the applicable statutes and 
rules.  
 
[¶8]      Relying on cases 
from other jurisdictions, Miller argues that the OAH’s authority includes 
determining whether the operator was certified and when a test is not performed 
by a certified operator, the law requires that the test be presumed 
invalid.
 
[¶9]      In order to reach 
our decision, we begin by looking at the applicable Wyoming statutes and rules 
that govern this appeal.  First, 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233 (LexisNexis 2011) states in pertinent 
part:
 
§ 
31-5-233.  Driving or having control 
of vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled 
substances; penalties.
. 
. . .
(k) 
Chemical analysis of a person’s blood, breath or urine to determine alcohol 
concentration or controlled substance content shall be performed in accordance 
with W.S. 31-6-105(a).
 
Accordingly, 
we look to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-105(a) (LexisNexis 2011), which 
states:
 
§ 
31-6-105.  Method of performing 
chemical analysis; persons permitted to draw blood; . . . 
.
 
(a)  Chemical 
analysis of the person’s blood, breath or urine to be considered valid under 
this section, shall be performed according to methods approved by the department 
of health and by an individual possessing a valid permit to conduct the 
analysis.  Permits shall be issued 
by the department of health for this purpose.  The department of health may promulgate 
and approve satisfactory methods in order to ascertain the qualifications of 
individuals permitted to conduct the analysis and shall issue to qualified 
individuals permits which are subject to termination or revocation by the 
department of health.
 
The 
DOH’s rules are also applicable here.  
On the subject of testing blood alcohol content, the rules are as 
follows:
 
Chapter 
I. General Provisions.
 
Section 
1. Authority. Pursuant to Wyoming Statute 31-6-105(a), for chemical 
analysis of the person’s blood, breath or urine to be considered valid it shall 
be performed according to methods approved by the Department of Health and by an 
individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Department of Health.  The Department of Health may promulgate 
and approve satisfactory methods in order to ascertain the qualifications of 
individuals to conduct the analysis and it shall issue permits to qualified 
analysts.  The Department shall 
terminate or revoke permits for analysts who do not meet the promulgated 
qualifications.
 
Department 
of Health Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol 
Testing, 
Ch. I, General Provisions, Sec. 1 (2004).
 
[¶10]   With regard to obtaining a permit 
to test, and maintaining the certification to do so, the DOH’s rules further 
state in pertinent part:
 
Chapter 
IV.  Permit 
Requirements
. 
. . .
 
Section 
2. Qualifications for Obtaining Permit.
 
(a)  Operator.
. 
. . .
(ii) 
Maintaining Certification.
(A)  To 
maintain certification an operator shall perform a minimum of one (1) checklist 
every two months.  These may be 
subject tests, reference alcohol solutions or complete checklist in the presence 
of the Senior Operator.  Reports of original certification and 
continued certification/recertification for each operator shall be kept on file 
and maintained by the Senior Operator.  
In case of noncompliance, the state agency shall revoke 
certification.
. 
. . .
 
Section 
3. Revocation of permits.
 
Permits 
may be revoked for failure to perform the required number of analyses as 
described above, for failure to follow prescribed procedures, or for failing a 
required practical and/or written examination.
 
Section 
4. Validity of Permits.
 
Permits 
shall be considered valid until the state agency deems otherwise, and so 
notifies the permittees.
 
Section 
5. State agency waivers.
 
The 
State agency may, at its discretion, and on an individual basis, waive any of 
the requirements, providing; the individual can demonstrate to the state 
agency’s satisfaction, an equivalent amount of knowledge and ability, and/or the 
state agency can demonstrate that the scientific validity of the result has not 
been affected.
 
Department 
of Health Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol 
Testing, 
Ch. IV, Permit Requirements, Sections 1-5 (2004).
 
[¶11]   Finally, the OAH speaks to special 
rules relating to driver’s licenses and states:
 
Chapter 
6, Special Rules Relating to Driver’s Licenses.
. 
. . .
(c)  For 
those contested case hearings referenced in subsection (b)…, when the Wyoming 
Department of Transportation presents evidence establishing that the chemical 
testing was conducted using methods approved under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §31-6-105, it 
shall be presumed that the test result is accurate.  This presumption may be rebutted by 
evidence establishing that the specific test result is inaccurate as a result of 
equipment malfunction or improper administration.
 
Office 
of Administrative Hearings, Special Rules Relating to Driver’s 
Licenses, 
Chapter 6, Section 2(c) (2002).
 
[¶12]   Although Bryant v. State ex rel. Wyoming Dept. of 
Transp., 2002 WY 140, ¶ 15, 55 P.3d 4, 9-10 (Wyo. 2002) is not exactly 
on point to the facts of this case, it does speak to a relevant 
statute:
 
While 
we agree with Bryant that the plain language of this statute requires testing to 
be performed by an individual who possesses a valid permit to conduct the 
analysis, we do not see where it requires the arresting officer to provide 
evidence that he or she possesses a valid permit as a prerequisite to testing 
the individual.  This is especially 
true when no tests are performed because testing is refused.  Our analysis of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§31-6-105(a) convinces us that the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute 
requires testing to be performed by a person who possesses a valid permit, who 
may or may not be the arresting officer, only when a chemical analysis of a 
person’s blood, breath, or urine is actually performed.  Because the testing was never performed, 
the question of whether Officer Bisceglia, or whomever would have conducted the 
test, possessed a valid permit is irrelevant.
 
[¶13]   Considering the applicable statues 
and our relevant case law under the facts of this case, we conclude that under 
the DOH’s Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, 
Chapter IV, Section 4, the operator’s permit in this case was valid because the 
state agency had not deemed otherwise and had not notified the permittee. 
(“Section 4. Validity of Permits. Permits shall be considered valid until 
the state agency deems otherwise, and so notifies the permittees.”)  Certainly, there is tension between the 
quoted rule and the DOH rule that states: “In case of noncompliance, the state 
agency shall revoke certification.”  
See id., at § 2(ii)(A) 
(emphasis added).  However, we 
conclude that section 4 is controlling, as suggested by this Court in Miller’s 
earlier appeal.
 
It 
is apparent that WDOH’s Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol 
Testing, ch. 4, §§ 2(ii)(A) and 3 are not entirely consistent regarding whether 
the Department has a mandatory requirement to revoke certification for failure 
to properly maintain certification. And further adding to the uncertainty is § 4 
that states that once an officer is initially certified, his permit “shall be 
considered valid until the state agency deems otherwise, and so notifies the 
permittee[].”
 
Miller, 
¶ 38, 275 P.3d  at 1265.
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶14]   The hearing examiner’s decision is 
affirmed, and Miller’s per se driver’s license suspension 
stands.  The test operator’s permit 
was valid, as she had not been notified otherwise.