Maryland Driving Intoxicated Sobriety Test Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

Roland H. CRAMPTON v. STATE of Maryland

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

June 3, 1987

Facts:

Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence and driving while intoxicated. The prosecution gave notice pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-306 that it would introduce breath test evidence without producing the tester at trial. Defendant then gave notice to require the presence of the tester, as was his right under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-306(b). The matter was continued and defendant requested a jury trial which transferred the matter to a higher trial court. Defendant gave notice again to require the presence of the tester, but not within the 10 days as required 10-306(b). Thus, the prosecution was not required to produce the tester. The trial court also allowed the prosecution to dismiss the alternative count of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed.

Issue:

Whether there was an erred in admitting the results of the

breathalyzer test

?

Whether there was an erred in permitting the arresting officer to testify about appellant’s performance on a series of field sobriety tests?

Discussion:

There is nothing “new” or perhaps even “scientific” about the exercises that an officer requests a suspect to perform. Those sobriety tests have been approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and are simply guidelines for police officers to utilize in order to observe more precisely a suspect’s coordination. It requires no particular scientific skill or training for a police officer, or any other competent person, to ascertain whether someone performing simple tasks is to a degree affected by alcohol. The field sobriety tests are designed to reveal objective information about a driver’s coordination. The Frye-Reed test does not apply to those field sobriety tests because the latter are essentially empirical observations, involving no controversial, new, or “scientific” technique. Their use is guided by practical experience, not theory. The trial judge did not err in admitting the trooper’s testimony relative to his observations of Crampton’s field sobriety test. The court also states that 10-306(b) did not require that defendant give notice in each court prior to each trial; one notice was sufficient and the trial court erred in requiring more. However, there was no error in allowing amendment of the charging instrument to dismiss the lesser included offense because defendant prepared to defend the greater charge.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia,

Maryland

, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com