Beylund v. Levi
2015 ND 18
| N.D. | 2015Background
- On Aug. 10, 2013 a Bowman police officer stopped Beylund’s vehicle after seeing it nearly hit a stop sign and stop partially in the roadway; officer smelled alcohol and saw an empty wine glass.
- Beylund refused roadside field sobriety tests and failed an on‑site breath screening; police arrested him and read the implied consent advisory at the hospital.
- Beylund consented to a chemical blood test at the hospital; result was 0.250 g/100 ml; the DOT hearing officer suspended his driver’s license for two years.
- Beylund sought reconsideration and administrative review, arguing the blood draw was an unconstitutional warrantless search and that the implied‑consent refusal/criminalization scheme created coercion and an unconstitutional condition.
- The district court affirmed the DOT decision; Beylund appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beylund) | Defendant's Argument (Levi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the traffic stop | Stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion; community‑caretaker exception doesn't apply | Issue waived for appeal because not in specifications of error | Waived; Court declined to address the stop |
| Voluntariness of consent to blood test (Fourth Amendment / state const.) | Consent involuntary because statute criminalizes refusal (coercion) | Consent voluntary; statutory penalties alone do not render consent involuntary | Consent was voluntary; coercion claim fails |
| Implied‑consent statute as an unconstitutional condition (Fourth Amendment) | Conditioning driving privilege on consenting to testing unconstitutionally forces surrender of Fourth Amendment rights | Statute is a permissible condition on the privilege of driving and furthers public safety; unconstitutional‑conditions doctrine does not invalidate it | Statute does not violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine; law upheld |
| Warrant requirement / search exception | Criminalizing refusal renders any consent involuntary so warrantless blood testing is unconstitutional | Consent (when given) is an exception to the warrant requirement; refusal prevents testing; statute does not authorize forced searches | Court rejects challenge; under facts consent occurred and statute does not authorize compelled test |
Key Cases Cited
- Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (inspection statute holding that owner could not be criminally punished for refusing suspicionless administrative entry)
- Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (upheld sobriety checkpoints balancing public safety against intrusion)
- Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 (1979) (recognized public safety interest and use of summary license suspension for refusal)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness test and consent as a Fourth Amendment exception)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (rejected per se exigency for nonconsensual blood draws; discussed implied‑consent laws as alternative enforcement tools)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (refusal to take BAC test admissible and Fifth Amendment not violated)
- Frost v. Railroad Comm’n of State of Cal., 271 U.S. 583 (1926) (government may not impose conditions that require relinquishing constitutional rights when granting privileges)