Opinion ID: 2076369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the hearing examiner's rulings

Text: During the cross-examination of Officer Braswell, defense counsel asked a somewhat argumentative question regarding whether the officer always stop[ped] people in cars assuming they are having a tiff back and forth at each other? Before the officer could respond, the hearing examiner interceded: Counsel, if I may, I don't think that's a germane question. I know you're trying to establish [sic] reasonable cause for the officer to initiate a traffic stop. I am convinced Officer Braswell did observe Mr. Eilers commit a traffic violation at the red light. (Emphasis added). At the time the examiner made this remark, neither Mr. Eilers nor Ms. Shelley had testified. After all of the testimony had been presented, but before closing argument, the hearing examiner asked Mr. Eilers' counsel whether he had anything in mitigation.  After hearing argument from the defense attorney, the hearing examiner delivered his oral decision, which we reproduce in its entirety, as follows: Gentlemen, ladies, having heard all of the testimony, I do credit Officer Braswell's testimony in making my following findings of fact. Mr. Eilers, (1), that you did operate a motor vehicle on or about December 20, 1988, at or near the 1000 block of Wisconsin Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C., at approximately 12:45 a.m.; (2) That you did at such time and place fail several field sobriety tests after the tests had been properly demonstrated; your speech was slurred and numbled, your balance was unsure; by your own sworn testimony, you had consumed at least one beer; you were advised of your Miranda rights; (3) That you did at such time and such place operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. My conclusion of law is (a) On or about December 20, 1988, at or near the 1000 block of Wisconsin Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C., you did operate a motor vehicle in such a manner as to show flagrant disregard for the safety of persons or property, in that you did operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor under authority of Section 302.5 of Title 18, District of Columbia Municipal Regulations; and (b) On or about December 20, 1988, you did, after being properly requested by an officer of the law, refuse to submit to two chemical tests of your breath, blood or urine to determine the alcohol content thereof as is required by D.C. Law 4-145. [12] The examiner added that it is my decision to issue a 12-month revocation without stay. On June 8, 1989, the Assistant Director of BMVS sustained the hearing examiner's order by checking a box entitled Affirmed.