Title: SONNY HWANG v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

SONNY HWANG v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION2011 WY 20Case Number: No. S-10-0120Decided: 02/09/2011NOTICE: This 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 correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 
SONNY 
HWANG,

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE OF WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Appellee 
(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Albany County

The 
Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

R. Michael Vang, 
Fleener & Vang, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce A. Salzburg, 
Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. 
Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; John S. 
Shumway.

 
 
 
 
Before KITE, C.J., 
and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
Appellant, 
Sonny Hwang, challenges an order of the district court, affirming an order from 
the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upholding the suspension of Mr. 
Hwang's driver's license.  Mr. Hwang 
contends that the police officer who administered his breath test failed to 
comply with the fifteen-minute observation period required under Department of 
Health Rules and Regulations.  We 
affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]      
Mr. Hwang presents 
the following issue:

 
 
Did the arresting 
officer present sufficient facts to find that the Licensee violated the elements 
of Wyoming's Implied Consent law, specifically that the officer presented 
sufficient "admissible" evidence to support that he complied with the 15 minute 
observation period for admission of a chemical test pursuant to Wyoming Statute 
§ 31-6-105(a).

 
 
The Wyoming 
Department of Transportation (WYDOT) states the issue as 
follows:

 
 
Were the hearing 
examiner's findings regarding the credibility of the officer and the certified 
record based upon substantial, credible evidence?

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
On June 12, 2009, at 
approximately 11:59 p.m., Mr. Hwang was stopped by Officer Drinkle of the 
Laramie Police Department for driving without his headlights illuminated.  While speaking with Mr. Hwang, Officer 
Drinkle smelled a strong odor of alcohol and noticed that Mr. Hwang's eyes were 
red and glassy and that his speech was slurred.  Mr. Hwang admitted to having seven 
drinks that evening.  After 
performing poorly on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and the "walk and turn" 
test,  Mr. Hwang was arrested for 
driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
31-5-233(b) (LexisNexis 2009).  For 
purposes of this appeal, Mr. Hwang stipulates that there was probable cause for 
the arrest.

 

[¶4]        
After the arrest, 
Officer Drinkle transported Mr. Hwang to the Albany County Detention Center, 
where he gave Mr. Hwang a breath test using an Intoximeter EC/IR.  Prior to administering the breath test, 
Officer Drinkle read Mr. Hwang the implied consent advisement pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102.  That statute 
provides that an individual who is arrested for driving under the influence is 
deemed to have given consent to a chemical test.  Officer Drinkle asked Mr. Hwang if he 
would submit to a breath test and Mr. Hwang consented. 

 
 

[¶5]        
In conjunction with 
his administration of the breath test, Officer Drinkle used the Wyoming Chemical 
Testing Program Intoximeter EC/IR Operational Checklist (Checklist) to document 
the results of the test.  Officer 
Drinkle recorded times in the appropriate spaces on the Checklist using his 
wristwatch.  The Checklist indicated 
that Officer Drinkle gave Mr. Hwang the implied consent advisement at "00:30," 
or 12:30 a.m., checked Mr. Hwang's mouth at 12:33 a.m., and took breath samples 
at 12:51 a.m. and 12:55 a.m.  Officer Drinkle testified that he 
calibrated his watch with the clock at the detention center.  The Intoximeter also had an internal 
clock and the printout from the machine indicated that Mr. Hwang gave his first 
breath sample at 12:51 and his second breath sample at 12:55.  The Intoximeter printout and the 
Checklist reported that Mr. Hwang had a .15% blood alcohol content level at 
12:51 a.m.  In an offense report 
prepared one week after the arrest, Officer Drinkle stated that he escorted Mr. 
Hwang into the Intoximeter room after completing the observation period.

 

 
 

[¶6]        
Pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(e), WYDOT sought to suspend Mr. Hwang's driver's 
license based on the breath test results.  
Mr. Hwang requested a contested case hearing to challenge the 
suspension.  A hearing was held on 
August 27, 2009, and both Mr. Hwang and WYDOT offered testimony and presented 
evidence.  WYDOT submitted a 
certified record, which included the Operational Checklist, the Intoximeter 
printout, and Officer Drinkle's offense report.  In addition, Officer Drinkle testified 
that he observed Mr. Hwang for fifteen minutes prior to taking the breath 
samples.  

 
 

[¶7]        
Mr. Hwang presented 
cell phone records indicating that a call was made to his employer at 12:43 a.m. 
on June 13, 2009.  He testified that 
he requested to make a phone call while waiting to take the breath test and was 
told he needed to wait until he completed the test.  He stated that he did not have his phone 
during the observation period, but was allowed to call his employer after he 
finished the test.  Officer Drinkle 
did not recall whether Mr. Hwang had a cell phone with him or whether Mr. Hwang 
used his cell phone, but he agreed that the detention center's policy was to not 
allow use of a phone until after the chemical testing and booking processes were 
complete.

 
 

[¶8]        
Following the 
hearing, the OAH issued an Order Upholding Per Se Suspension.  The hearing examiner found the evidence 
established that Officer Drinkle observed Mr. Hwang for the required 
fifteen minutes.  The hearing 
examiner stated that 

 
 
[Mr.] Hwang's 
testimony as to his recollection of the events in the early morning of June 13, 
2009, was not as credible and believable as the documents in the certified 
record, which were prepared contemporaneously with the events, and Officer 
Drinkle's testimony due to the fact that [Mr.] Hwang was significantly 
intoxicated at the time.

 
 
Mr. Hwang petitioned 
for review in the district court and the district court affirmed the decision of 
the OAH.  Mr. Hwang filed a timely 
appeal to this Court.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶9]        
When we consider an 
appeal from a district court's review of an administrative agency's decision, we 
review the case as if it had come directly from the administrative agency.  Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 8, 188 P.3d 554, 557 (Wyo. 2008). 
 Review of an administrative 
agency's action is governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which 
provides that the reviewing court shall:

 
 

(ii) Hold unlawful 
and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an 
abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;          
(B) Contrary 
to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;      (C) In excess of statutory 
jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;           
(D) Without 
observance of procedure required by law; or(E) Unsupported by substantial 
evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by 
statute.          

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-114(c).  Evidentiary issues are 
reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.  Dale, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d  at 561.  The substantial evidence test is 
described as follows:

 
 
In reviewing findings 
of fact, we examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial 
evidence to support an agency's findings. If the agency's decision is supported 
by substantial evidence, we cannot properly substitute our judgment for that of 
the agency and must uphold the findings on appeal. Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency's conclusions. It is more than a scintilla of 
evidence.

 
 

Id., ¶ 11, 188 P.3d  at 
558.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶10]     
Mr. Hwang asserts 
that the only issue in this case is whether he was observed for the required 
fifteen minutes prior to taking the chemical breath test.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-105(a) provides 
that, in order for a chemical test to be valid, the test must be performed 
according to the methods approved by the Department of Health.  With regard to breath alcohol analysis, 
Department of Health Rules and Regulations provide, in relevant part, as 
follows:

 
 
(a) Analytical 
procedures for breath alcohol analysis should include the following controls in 
conjunction with the testing of each subject:

 
 
(i) Subject must be observed for a minimum of 
fifteen (15) minutes prior to testing to prevent residual mouth 
alcohol.  All foreign 
material (except dentures) must be removed from the mouth at the start of [the] 
observation period and [the] subject must not be allowed to smoke, eat, drink, 
or place anything in their oral cavity[,] etc.

 
 
Wyoming Department of 
Health, Rules and Regulations for 
Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, ch. III, § 1(a)(i) (2004) (emphasis 
added).  The purpose of the 
Department of Health's Rules is "[t]o insure scientific validity and uniform 
standards of practice for chemical analysis of alcohol."  Id. at ch. I, § 2; Peterson v. Wyo. DOT, 2007 WY 90, ¶ 12, 158 P.3d 706, 710 (Wyo. 
2007).

 
 

[¶11]     
Mr. Hwang concedes 
that the certified record appears to establish compliance with the 
fifteen-minute observation period.  
He argues, however, that his testimony and cell phone records established 
that it was not possible for Officer Drinkle to have completed the observation 
period prior to administering the breath test.  He contends that if the observation 
period began at 12:33 a.m., as indicated by the Operational Checklist, and he 
made a cell phone call at 12:43 a.m., after he completed the breath test, then 
he was observed for less than the required fifteen minutes.  Although Mr. Hwang presented evidence 
that may have been in conflict with the evidence presented by WYDOT, "[o]ur job 
is not to re-weigh the evidence or determine credibility of witnesses.  That is the responsibility of the finder 
of fact."  Batten v. Wyo. DOT Drivers' License 
Div., 2007 WY 173, ¶ 20, 170 P.3d 1236, 1243 (Wyo. 
2007).  Rather, pursuant to the 
standard of review applied to evidentiary findings at the agency level, we must 
determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the hearing 
examiner's decision to reject Mr. Hwang's evidence.  

 
 

[¶12]     
Upon weighing the 
evidence, the hearing examiner found that 

 
 
[Mr.] Hwang's 
testimony as to his recollection of the events in the early morning of June 13, 
2009, was not as credible and believable as the documents in the certified 
record, which were prepared contemporaneously with the events, and Officer 
Drinkle's testimony due to the fact that [Mr.] Hwang was significantly 
intoxicated at the time.

  

With regard to the 
cell phone records, the hearing examiner noted that 

 
 
there was no 
foundation provided as to the accuracy of the times and numbers provided on the 
log.  Even assuming the phone log 
was accurate and synchronized with Officer Drinkle's wristwatch, in order for 
[Mr.] Hwang's argument to succeed this Office must believe [Mr.] Hwang's 
recollection that he or someone else did not have access to his phone during the 
observation period.  

 
 
The hearing examiner 
stated that "this Office found Officer Drinkle's testimony confirming he 
completed the requisite fifteen minute observation of [Mr.] Hwang and stating he 
used his watch to measure the time to be more credible than [Mr.] Hwang's 
testimony and the phone log."  The 
hearing examiner concluded that WYDOT established compliance with the 
fifteen-minute observation period by a preponderance of the evidence. 

 
 

[¶13]     
We find that the 
hearing examiner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The 
Operational Checklist, which was prepared contemporaneously with the breath 
test, showed that Mr. Hwang was observed for the eighteen-minute period that 
elapsed between 12:33 a.m., when Officer Drinkle checked Mr. Hwang's mouth, and 
12:51 a.m., when his first breath sample was taken.  This evidence was corroborated by the 
Intoximeter printout, and by Officer Drinkle's offense report and testimony. 
 Further, the hearing examiner's 
finding that Officer Drinkle's testimony was more credible than Mr. Hwang's 
testimony is reasonable in light of Mr. Hwang's level of intoxication during the 
observation period.  We have no 
difficulty determining that there is "relevant evidence which a reasonable mind 
might accept in support of the agency's conclusions."  The record contains substantial evidence 
to support the hearing examiner's conclusion that Officer Drinkle observed Mr. 
Hwang for fifteen minutes prior to taking a breath sample.

 
 

[¶14]     
Finally, Mr. Hwang 
argues that he should be allowed to supplement the record with certified copies 
of his phone records and the live testimony of his employer or, alternatively, 
that the case should be remanded so that he can provide this evidence to the 
OAH.  However, we find no merit in 
this argument.  Mr. Hwang has not 
applied to this Court for leave to present additional evidence pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 12.08.  In addition, Mr. 
Hwang has failed to show good cause why he did not present the evidence in his 
contested case hearing.  See W.R.A.P. 12.08; Shryack v. Carr Constr. Co., 3 P.3d 850, 856 (Wyo. 2000).  Mr. Hwang had the opportunity to 
present his evidence when the case was before the hearing examiner, and his 
failure to do so does not warrant our consideration of additional evidence on 
appeal.  

 
 

[¶15]     
Affirmed.