Castillo v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
2016 ND 253
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Early-morning traffic stop after failure to stop at a stop sign; officer detected alcohol and Castillo admitted drinking and declined field sobriety tests.
- Officer requested an onsite breath screening; Castillo refused the onsite screening and asked to speak with a lawyer but did not; officer arrested him for DUI.
- Post-arrest, the officer read the statutory implied-consent advisory for chemical testing but did not tell Castillo that refusing the onsite screening could be cured by later submitting to a chemical test (the 2015 "remedy" language in N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(2)).
- Castillo refused the post-arrest chemical test; the Department issued notice of intent to revoke his driving privileges for 180 days based on refusal to submit to testing.
- An administrative hearing officer revoked Castillo’s license; the district court reversed, holding the officer’s failure to give the remedy advisory required dismissal of the administrative revocation.
- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the Department’s 180-day revocation, holding the 2015 remedy language in the criminal refusal statute does not create an administrative remedy under chapter 39-20.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s failure to inform driver that an onsite screening refusal may be "remedied" by later submitting to a chemical test requires dismissal of an administrative revocation under ch. 39-20 | Castillo: the 2015 remedy language is a necessary part of implied-consent advisories and must be given; without it driver cannot knowingly cure a prior refusal, so administrative revocation is improper | DOT: the remedy language is in the criminal refusal statute (§ 39-08-01(2)) and was not enacted into ch. 39-20; chapter 39-20 does not provide an administrative consequence for failing to give that specific language | Held for DOT: the remedy language applies to criminal offenses and does not, by its terms, create an administrative remedy in chapter 39-20; revocation reinstated |
| Whether statutes should be harmonized to require the § 39-08-01(2) remedy be read into ch. 39-20 advisories | Castillo: statutes must be read together to give meaning; harmonizing avoids unfairness | DOT: court cannot judicially add language to ch. 39-20 that the legislature declined to enact | Held for DOT: court will not add statutory language; harmonization cannot create a relief not enacted by legislature |
| Whether Throlson or O’Connor require dismissal of administrative action here | Castillo: prior cases support requiring certain advisory language before a refusal exists or test results admissible | DOT: Throlson and O’Connor concerned failures under ch. 39-20 advisories and criminal suppression rules, not the separate criminal remedy in § 39-08-01(2) | Held for DOT: those cases are distinguishable; this case involved a statutory requirement in the criminal refusal statute not mirrored in ch. 39-20 |
| Whether constitutional/criminal protections apply to administrative implied-consent hearings | Castillo: omission prejudiced his ability to decide to take a chemical test | DOT: constitutional protections applicable in criminal trials do not automatically apply in civil administrative license-suspension proceedings | Held for DOT: administrative proceedings have different protections; the omission did not by statute require dismissal of the administrative revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979) (standard for reviewing agency fact findings)
- Garcia v. Levi, 883 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 2016) (agency conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
- Schlittenhart v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 865 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 2015) (administrative-review principles)
- Throlson v. Backes, 466 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 1991) (failure to give required ch. 39-20 advisory defeats legally effective request for testing)
- State v. O’Connor, 877 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 2016) (suppression where chemical-test advisory was incomplete under § 39-20-01)
- Fasching v. Backes, 452 N.W.2d 324 (N.D. 1990) (constitutional protections in criminal cases do not fully apply to administrative license suspensions)
- Holte v. N.D. State Highway Comm’r, 436 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1989) (same principle regarding administrative proceedings)