Opinion ID: 6326916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: As an initial matter, we note that, because we hold that alleged noncompliance with the twenty-minute observation period goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to the admissibility of breath test results and Dejarnette has raised no meaningful allegation as to any irregularity having occurred during the observation period, we need not necessarily address whether the record in this case demonstrates that the officers complied with the observation period. Even so, we conclude that the record supports a finding that the officers complied with the twenty-minute observation period. And, we determine that the circuit court found on the record that the officers complied with the requirements of the applicable COMAR regulation. COMAR 10.35.02.08G does not define “observed” or “observation” and neither - 33 - term is qualified by a word such as “continuous,” “unbroken,” “constant,” or anything of the like. Indeed, neither term is qualified whatsoever. The regulation does not require that the person performing the observation watch the person and do nothing else. The regulation does not describe the manner in which the observation is to be performed, other than that the observation is meant to ensure that for the twenty minutes before administration of a breath test, an individual does not eat, drink, smoke, or have any foreign substance in the individual’s mouth or respiratory tract, and the individual’s mouth must be checked. See COMAR 10.35.02.08G(1), (2). Given this, we will not read into the regulation something that is not there and hold that observation means that an officer must give the individual constant, fixed, or unbroken attention during the twenty-minute period. Rather, like the Court of Special Appeals, we conclude that it is “unreasonable to require continuous, unbroken observation for twenty minutes” and that an officer certainly has the ability to discern whether an individual eats, drinks, smokes, or puts something in the individual’s mouth without the officer’s gaze being solely transfixed on the person for an uninterrupted period of twenty minutes. Dejarnette, 251 Md. App. at 478, 254 A.3d at 53031. We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that “[o]fficers may use numerous senses to observe an individual to ensure they do not eat, drink, smoke, or put something in their mouth.” Id. at 478, 254 A.3d at 531. The record in this case amply demonstrates that the officers complied with the twenty-minute observation period. Forty-four minutes elapsed between the time that Dejarnette was stopped at 1:59 a.m. and the time at which the first test result occurred at 2:43 a.m. Thirty-one minutes elapsed between the time that Dejarnette was arrested at 2:12 - 34 - a.m. and the first test result. And, twenty-two minutes elapsed between the time that Dejarnette arrived at the police barrack at 2:21 a.m. and the first test result. For the thirtyone minutes between arrest and the first test result (2:12 a.m. to 2:43 a.m.), Trooper Brown was with Dejarnette and close enough to him to observe whether he ate, drank, smoked, or had anything in his mouth. At the time of arrest, Trooper Brown checked Dejarnette’s mouth and pockets before he cuffed Dejarnette’s hands behind his back and placed him in the front passenger seat of the police car. Trooper Brown transported Dejarnette to the police barrack and when they arrived at the barrack at 2:21 a.m., Sergeant Todd, the duty officer, met them and a second search was conducted in Sergeant Todd’s presence. Sergeant Todd testified about the second search, stating that he had Dejarnette open his mouth and stick out his tongue, and he looked in his mouth and watched while Trooper Brown searched Dejarnette. Trooper Brown testified that nothing was found in Dejarnette’s mouth during either search. During the search at the barrack, Trooper Brown checked Dejarnette’s pockets and anything that Dejarnette had in them would have been removed and placed in a bag that Dejarnette did not have access to. The evidence established that for the sixteen minutes between 2:21 a.m. and 2:37 a.m., Dejarnette was in Trooper Brown’s presence at the barrack. During that time, Trooper Brown took Dejarnette to the processing room, which he described as a small room of approximately eight or ten feet by twelve or fourteen feet containing a desk and two chairs. When asked whether he was sure that Dejarnette did not have something in his mouth in the police car and the processing room, Trooper Brown testified: “All I could say was, he had his hands behind his back, and they were handcuffed” and Dejarnette’s mouth - 35 - “was empty when he was placed in the car.” Trooper Brown testified that during the drive to the police barrack and in the processing room, Dejarnette did not smoke, have anything to eat or drink, or put a mint in his mouth. Trooper Brown also testified that he did not hear or smell Dejarnette belch and that he did not see Dejarnette make any hand movements while he was seated uncuffed in the processing room. Sergeant Todd’s testimony was consistent with Trooper Brown’s. Sergeant Todd testified that, when he was in the processing room, Dejarnette did not have anything in his mouth and that he saw nothing amiss with him. In short, the record supports a finding of compliance with the twenty-minute observation period. From the time of Dejarnette’s arrest at 2:12 a.m.—and even before— until when the first breath sample was taken and the test result occurred at 2:43 a.m., Trooper Brown was in close proximity to Dejarnette and able to observe him. While he was in the police car, Dejarnette was in the front passenger seat, just a short distance from Trooper Brown, with his hands cuffed behind his back, making it almost impossible for him to eat, drink, smoke, or place a foreign substance in his mouth without that action being detected by Trooper Brown. While he was at the barrack, Dejarnette was a short distance from Trooper Brown in a small room, after having been searched twice and having any items in his possession removed from his pockets. Trooper Brown testified that Dejarnette did not have anything in his mouth while in the processing room and Sergeant Todd also testified that was the case when he was in the processing room with Dejarnette. The evidence in this case was more than sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the twentyminute observation period. - 36 - To be sure, during the observation period, Trooper Brown read the DR-15 Advice of Rights form to Dejarnette. At the motions hearing, Dejarnette’s counsel had Trooper Brown read aloud the Advice of Rights form. The circuit court advised Trooper Brown to “[r]ead it as if you’re advising me[.]” Trooper Brown read the form and the circuit court noted that it took seven minutes. The following exchange then occurred: [DEJARNETTE’S COUNSEL:] It’s fair to say during the time that you were reading that, you were not looking at me; correct? [TROOPER BROWN:] That’s correct.[13] [DEJARNETTE’S COUNSEL:] Okay. THE COURT: But Sergeant Todd would have presumably been looking at me, if you were reading it to me? [TROOPER BROWN:] Yes. [DEJARNETTE’S COUNSEL:] Was Sergeant Todd in the room the entire time? [TROOPER BROWN:] I don’t recall if he was in the room the entire time. Dejarnette’s counsel attempted to suggest that Sergeant Todd may not have been in the room when the form was read. To the extent that Trooper Brown understood the circuit court to be asking about where Sergeant Todd would have been looking if he were in the room, Trooper Brown responded that Sergeant Todd would have been looking at the person 13 In responding to questions from the circuit court, Trooper Brown confirmed that, while reading the Advice of Rights form, although he reads from the form, he looks at the person he is advising. The circuit court had instructed Trooper Brown to read the form to the court (“me”), not Dejarnette’s counsel. So, that Trooper Brown responded that he was not looking at Dejarnette’s counsel while reading the form means nothing. Trooper Brown had been instructed to look at the court as if the court were the person whom he was advising. - 37 - whom the form was being read to. Either way, the outcome of the analysis is the same. Even if Trooper Brown had been in the processing room alone with Dejarnette and reading the form during the observation period, given his close proximity to Dejarnette in the small room, he would have been able to observe whether Dejarnette ate, drank, smoked, or placed a foreign substance in his mouth. In addition, Dejarnette had been searched twice before he went into the processing room and anything in his pockets was removed. And, Trooper Brown was close enough to Dejarnette that he would have been able to see, smell, or hear if Dejarnette belched or vomited, and, for his part, Dejarnette has merely suggested that he could possibly have done either. We are satisfied that the twenty-minute observation period prescribed by COMAR 10.35.02.08G was complied with. Finally, like the Court of Special Appeals, we conclude that the circuit court found that the officers complied with the twenty-minute observation period required by COMAR 10.35.02.08G. See Dejarnette, 251 Md. App. at 480, 254 A.3d at 531. When ruling on the motion in limine, the circuit court described the sequence of events that had occurred: [W]hen you’re arresting somebody, and you’re putting them in the car, and you’re driving, and you’re taking them out of the car, and you search them again, and you are taking them down to the room, you know, presumably, they’re in close proximity to you, they’re not away from you, and you can observe whether they’ve belched or vomited, the same as you can in a room. But, quite frankly, I think best practices is that, you’re in a room with them, as the trooper said, from as close as you were today with your client, and you’re able to be close enough to smell, to touch, if necessary, if you suspect there’s something in their mouth, to see, all of your tactile senses are in such a close range, that you can make those observations. The circuit court specifically determined that, between 2:21 a.m. and 2:43 a.m., “during the 22 minutes, we’ve got two people, a combination of the two people[, i.e., Trooper - 38 - Brown and Sergeant Todd,] that are making observations. And neither one observed a belch, a vomit, a stick of gum, a cigarette, anything to the contrary that would invalidate the test[.]” It is clear that in ruling on the motion in limine, the circuit court found that the officers complied with the twenty-minute observation period set forth in COMAR 10.35.02.08G, and that the court’s factual findings are supported by the record. Nothing more was required. The Court of Special Appeals correctly affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO PAY COSTS. - 39 -