City of Fargo v. Hofer, 952 N.W.2d 58

Fargo police stopped Simon Hofer, found suspected meth and paraphernalia, and arrested him for DUI.
Officer read an implied-consent advisory and administered a breath test (result 0.00%).
Officer obtained and served a search warrant for a urine sample, then read an implied-consent advisory before administering the urine test.
The urine advisory omitted the phrase “directed by the law enforcement officer.” Hofer consented and the urine test was positive for drugs.
Hofer moved to suppress the urine result under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) (statutory exclusion for failure to give the required advisory); the City argued the search warrant made the advisory irrelevant.
The district court denied suppression; the Supreme Court reversed, holding the urine test was administered under the implied-consent statute, the advisory was substantively incomplete, and the statutory exclusion applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the implied-consent advisory was substantively incomplete because it omitted the phrase “directed by the law enforcement officer”	The City effectively relied on the warrant to justify admissibility (and conceded the advisory was defective under Vagts)	Hofer: omission is a substantive statutory defect under City of Bismarck v. Vagts and renders results inadmissible	Court: omission was a substantive omission under Vagts; advisory did not meet statutory requirement
Whether a valid search warrant cures a defective implied-consent advisory, allowing admission of the urine result	A warrant makes the implied-consent advisory unnecessary and the evidence admissible	Hofer: statutory exclusion of § 39-20-01(3)(b) applies to tests administered under the implied-consent statute even if a warrant was obtained	Court: A warrant does not cure the statutory defect; because the test was administered under § 39-20-01 and advisory was incomplete, the test result is inadmissible

City of Bismarck v. Vagts, 932 N.W.2d 523 (2019) (omission of “directed by the law enforcement officer” is a substantive omission invalidating advisory)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (blood draws are searches generally requiring a warrant; breath-tests treated differently under implied consent)
State v. Helm, 901 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 2017) (urine and blood tests generally require a warrant; distinguishes breath-test implied-consent exception)
State v. Otto, 840 N.W.2d 589 (N.D. 2013) (evidence from unreasonable searches must be suppressed under exclusionary principles)
State v. Brown, 906 N.W.2d 120 (N.D. 2018) (statutory protections may provide greater restrictions on admissibility than the Fourth Amendment)