Bodwell v. Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-2021-18

GABRIEL BODWELL,
Petitioner
DECISION AND ORDER
v.

MAINE BUREAU OF MOTOR
VEHICLES,
Respondent

The matter before the couti is an appeal by the Petitioner from a decision of
the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Bureau) suspending his driver's license for a period
of 6 years. Mr. Bodwell contends that the suspension of his license should have been
for a period of no more than 3 years. The appeal has been brought in accordance with
5 M.R.S. §§ 11001-11008 (Maine Administrative Procedure Act) and M.R.Civ.P.
soc.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of this appeal, the facts are not in dispute.
Mr. Bodwell was charged with OUI on or about December 18, 2020. Based
on the report of the law enforcement officer, the Bureau sent Mr. Bodwell a "Notice
of Suspension and Opportunity for Hearing" informing him that, effective January
24, 2021, his driver's license would be suspended for a period of 6 years pursuant to
29-A M.R.S. §§ 2451(3)(C) and 2453(3) & (6), because he had "3 OUI offenses
within a 10-year period." Mr. Bodwell requested an administrative hearing, which
was held on April 1, 2021.
Two police officers testified, via telephone, at the hearing, at the conclusion of
which the hearing officer found that there was probable cause to believe that Mr.
Bodwell had operated a motor vehicle with an excessive alcohol level on December
18, 2020. (Administrative Record, "A.R. "at 48-50). Prior to making that ruling, the
hearing officer and Mr. Bodwell 's counsel discussed whether any suspension, if
imposed, would be for 3 years or for 6 years. Counsel pointed out that although Mr.
Bodwell's BMV driving record showed a suspension for a refusal to take a test in
2011, there was no criminal conviction. (AR at Transcript at 43-45; see also AR at
Exhibit 8 (3)). The hearing officer indicated that he was inclined to think it was a 3­
year suspension, not a 6-year suspension, because there would have only been two
prior OUI offenses, rather than three, but if it were determined to be a 6-year
suspension, Mr. Bodwell could contest that determination. The record indicates that
the Bureau ultimately concluded that Mr. Bodwell had 3 OUI offenses within a 10­
year period and, therefore, was subject to a 6-year suspension. 29-A M.R.S. §§
2451(3)(C) and 2453(6)(A). Those 3 OUI offenses were, according to the Bureau,
the December 2020 OUI offense, an OUI in 2017 and the 2011 suspension for a
refusal, all within a 10-year period.
From the administrative record and the pleadings, it appears that in April 2011,
Mr. Bodwell had an administrative hearing, following which the hearing officer, in a
written decision, ruled that Bodwell had refused a chemical test and was subject to a
suspension of his license. Later, in October 2011, the District Court (Mallonee,J.)
granted Bodwell 's motion to suppress in the criminal proceeding, on the basis that
the stop of his vehicle was not objectively reasonable. See Exhibit D to Petition for
Review of Final Agency Action. As a result, there was no criminal conviction in
connection with the 2011 OUI, but the administrative suspension for a refusal
remained.
DISCUSSION
The Law Court has frequently reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of
administrative agency decisions is "deferential and limited." Passadumkeag

2
Mountain Friends v. Bd. ofEnvtl. Prat., 2014 ME 116, ,r 12, 102 A.3d 1181 (quoting
Friends ofLincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Envtl. Prat., 2010 ME 18, ,r 12, 989 A.2d 1128).
The cou1i is not permitted to overturn an agency's decision "unless it: violates the
Constitution or statutes; exceeds the agency's authority; is procedurally unlawful; is
arbitrary or capricious; constitutes an abuse of discretion; is affected by bias or error
of law; or is unsuppo1ied by the evidence in the record." /<. roger v Departmental of
Environmental Protection, 2005 ME. 50, ,r 7, 870 A.2d 566. The party seeking to
vacate a state agency decision has the burden of persuasion on appeal. Ander ·on v
Maine Public Emp loyees Retirement Svstem, 2009 ME. 134, ,r 3, 985 A.2d 501. In
particular, a party seeking to overturn an agency's decision bears the burden of
showing that "no competent evidence" suppmis it. Stein v. Me. Crim. Justice
Academy, 2014 ME 82, ,r 11, 95 A.3d 612.
Title 29-A M.R.S. § 2453(3) requires the Secretary of State to "immediately
suspend a license of a person determined to have operated a motor vehicle with an
excessive alcohol level." The length of the suspension is "as if the person were
convicted of OUI." 29-A M.R.S. § 2453(6). Thus, the suspension provisions of
section 2451(3) apply, namely, 3 years if the person has 2 OUI offenses within a IO­
year period, but 6 years if there have been 3 QUI offenses within a 10-year period.
An "OUI offense" is defined to mean "an OUI conviction or suspension for failure to
submit to a test." 29-A M.R.S. § 2401(11).
The sole issue before the comi is whether the Bureau committed legal error in
treating the 2011 suspension for a refusal, as the third OUI offense within a l 0-year
period. Stated otherwise, Bodwell maintains that the Bureau was bound to follow the
District Court's ruling in the criminal case and apply the exclusionary rule and/or
principles of collateral estoppel in the administrative hearing process, and should not
have treated the 2011 OUI as a qualifying offense for purposes of imposing a license
suspension under sections 2451(3) and 2453(3) & (6).

3
The court have reviewed the parties' briefs and the entire administrative
record, and concludes that the Bureau did not err in treating Mr. Bodwell's 2011
suspension for a refusal as a 3rd offense within a 10-year period so as to require a
suspension of 6 years.
Mr. Bodwell's argument that the District Cami's ruling in the criminal case in
2011 should have been binding on the Bureau, has already been addressed and
rejected by the Law Court in State v. Powell, 614 A.3d 1303 (Me. 1992). The facts
in Powell are very similar to this case. There, the Distrcit Court had found that the
vehicle stop lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion and granted the defendant's
motion to suppress. The Law Court held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to
the suspension process administered by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the Court
noted that the disposition in the criminal case did not have res judicata or other
preclusive effect in the license suspension proceeding. Id. at 1306-07, n. 3.
The position adopted in Powell appears to be the majority view. See, e.g.,
Francen v. Colo. Dep'tofRevenue, 328 P.3d 111,119, n.7 (Colo. 2014) (collecting
cases); Regula v. Commonwealth, 146 A3d 836, 845-46 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct.,
2016) (collecting cases).
CONCLUSION
The entry is:
The Petition for Review of Final Agency Action is DENIED and the Decision
of the Bureau is AFFIRMED.

DATED: September 13, 2021.

/~/$//
William R. Stokes
Justice, Maine Superior Court

4
Uc:tlit:: 11lit::U.U.J/UJ/£U£ I UUl,;l\lt::l l'IU.I"'\,-£ 1- I 0
..
County !..

Action: 80C J. STOKES

Gabriel Bodwell vs State of Maine BMV

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney

Benjamin P Campo, Jr, Esq Donald Macomber, AAG
Douglas McDaniel & Campo LLC PA 6 State House Station
90 Bridge St, Suite 100 Augusta, ME 04333
Westbrook, ME 04092

Date of Entry

05/03/21 Petition For Review of Final Agency Action Pursuant to Rule 80C, filed. s/Campo, Esq

05/18/21 Entry of Appearance, filed (5/12/21 ). s/Macomber, AAG
Record to be submitted by 6/2/21

06/01 /21 Certified Record, filed (5/28/21). s/Macomber, AAG

06/01/21 Notice & Briefing Schedule, issued
Copy to parties/counsel

07/07/21 Petitioner Brief, filed. s/Campo, Esq.

07/20/21 Brief of Respondent, filed (7/19/21). s/Macomber, AAG

07/30/21 Petitioner's Reply Brief, filed (7/29/21 ). s/Campo, Esq.

09/02/21 Under advisement with Justice Stokes

09/23/21 DECISION AND ORDER, Stokes, J. (9/13/21)
The Petition for Review of Final Agency Action, is DENIED and the Decision of the
The Bureau is AFFIRMED.
Copy to counsel/parties and repositories

09/23/21 Case closed

Page 1 AP-21-18