The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO.AP-2017-34
NATHAN LOCKE,
Petitioner
DECISION AND ORDER
V.
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Respondent
The matter before the court is an appeal by the Petitioner from a decision of a
hearing officer with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles dated June 16, 2017 refusing to
rescind the administrative suspension of his driver's license for a period of 3 years,
on the basis of a report from a Cumberland County Deputy Sheriff that the
Petitioner had operated a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level on
March 17, 2017. This appeal has been brought in accordance with 5 M.R. S.
§§ 11001-11008 (Maine Administrative Procedure Act) and M.R.Civ.P. SOC.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
The sole issue before the court is whether there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the Hearing Officer's determination that the Petitioner was the
operator of the motor vehicle at the time in question.
At the administrative hearing at which the Petitioner sought to have his
license suspension rescinded, the Hearing Officer received the testimony of
Cumberland County Deputy Sheriff Marc Marion, whose police report was also
admitted into evidence as an exhibit. The Hearing Officer also heard the testimony
of Tiffany Delisle-Watson, who maintained that she, not the Petitioner, had been
driving the vehicle. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Hearing Officer made
the following findings:
So, Counsel, I mean there are a couple of things that make it
hard for me to accept the story that we heard from Ms. Delisle-Watson
today, and that is that we did have the officer testify and put in his
report that he saw a male subject leave the driver's seat, climb over the
female passenger, and exit the passenger side front door. We heard
Ms. Delisle-Watson explain that she was in the driver's seat and that
she pushed Mr. Locke to get him out of the car and somehow she ends
up in the passengers [sic] seat with the doors closed in a Hatchback
with a console in between them. I find that explanation hard to
believe. She didn't explain that she was, you know, that she'd open
the door, she'd gotten out, she'd gone around, that Mr. Locke had
gotten out. I don't find her explanation credible of that, so I - credible,
and I find that the deputy's observation, his testimony about observing
Locke in the driver's seat, climb over the passenger seat and exit the
door, I find that to be credible. The other piece of information that is
in the deputy's report is that during his contact with Mr. Locke, Mr.
Locke told him that 'He would not deny that he was the driver, but also
would not admit it.' And then I - which I certainly don't take as an
emphatic denial that he was driving. And further, the deputy testified
that he made contact with the passengers, including Ms. Delisle
Watson and Jonah Simmons, both of whom told him on the scene at
the time during that initial encounter that Nathan was driving. So, you
know, despite the testimony of Ms. Delisle-Watson, I'm going to deny
the petition because I do find that it's more likely than not that Mr.
Locke was operating this vehicle and we have the test, so that is my
finding. (Record, "R." at Tab 5, pgs 46-48).
DISCUSSION
The Law Court has frequently reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of
administrative agency decisions is "deferential and limited." Passadumkeag
Mountain Friends v. Ed. of Envtl. Prat., 2014 ME 116, ~ 12, 102 A.3d 1181
(quoting Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Ed. of Envtl. Prat., 2010 ME 18, ~ 12, 989
A.2d 1128). The court 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 unsupported by the evidence in the record." Kroger v
2
Departmental o( 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. Anderson v Maine Public E mployees Retirement S ystem, 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" supports it. Stein v. Me.
Crim. Justice Academy, 2014 ME 82, ,-r 11, 95 A.3d 612.
This court must examine "the entire record to determine whether, on the basis
of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably
find the facts as it did." Friends of Lincoln Lake v Board of Environmental
Protection, 2001 ME. 18 i-113, 989 A. 2d 1128. The court may not substitute its
judgment for that of the agency's on questions of fact. 5 M.R.S. § 11007(3).
Determinations of the believability or credibility of the witnesses and evidence,
supported by substantial evidence in the record, should not be disturbed by this
court. Cotton v Maine Employment Security Commission, 431 A. 2d 637, 640 (Me.
1981 ). The issue is not whether the court would have reached the same result the
agency did, but whether the "record contains competent and substantial evidence
that supports the result reached" by the agency. Seider v. Board of Examiners of
Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, ,-r 8, 762 A.2d 551 quoting CWCO, Inc. v.
Superintendent ofInsurance, 1997 ME 226, ,-r 6, 703 A. 2d 1258, 1261.
The court has no difficulty in concluding that the record contains substantial
evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding that the Petitioner was the
operator of the vehicle. The task of assessing the credibility of the witnesses and
the weight to be given the evidence, is the exclusive province of the administrative
hearing officer. The court has no basis, or authority, to substitute its judgment for
that of the Hearing Officer who heard the witnesses live and in-person, and who
was in the best position to evaluate their believability.
3
CONCLUSION
The entry is:
The Petition for Judicial Review of Final Agency Action is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket of this case by
notation reference in accordance with M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).
DATED: January 8, 2018.
il ·a
Justice, Maine Superior Court
4