Collection Center v. Bydal
2011 ND 63
N.D.2011Background
- Tompkins was arrested in October 2009 for driving under the influence.
- On the trial date, he moved to suppress both the State breath test and an independent blood test and pled guilty conditionally after the court limited suppression to the blood test.
- The district court suppressed the independent blood test but admitted the breath test results.
- An arresting officer drove Tompkins to Jamestown Hospital and informed staff of the independent blood test.
- The nurse used the State Crime Lab kit; the blood sample was sent to the State Crime Lab for analysis and the results were provided to the State’s Attorney.
- Tompkins contends government involvement violated his right to an independent test; the State contends there was no impermissible interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did officer interference deny independent test access? | Tompkins argues the officer hindered by not explaining right to choose clinic and by remaining during the draw. | Tompkins contends the officer’s conduct did not hinder; Bakkerud and Moore require only non-interference, not active assistance. | No impermissible interference; actions exceeded but did not deny the test. |
| Did State Crime Lab involvement impair the independent test rights? | Tompkins claims mailing results and lab involvement violated rights under § 39-20-02. | Statute allows an independent test and the accused bears costs; no affirmative duty on police. | Not impermissible interference; state testing complied with the statute. |
| Should the blood test have been suppressed due to State involvement? | Excessive Government involvement violated the right to an independent test. | ND law limits rights to what § 39-20-02 enumerates; no additional protections. | Blood test suppression inappropriate; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1993) (suppression or dismissal remedies for denial of independent test)
- City of Fargo v. Bakkerud, 576 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 1998) (officer not required to actively assist, but must not hinder independent test)
- State v. Moore, 541 N.W.2d 84 (N.D. 1995) (minimal accommodation of independent test and non-interference standard)
- State v. Messner, 481 N.W.2d 236 (N.D. 1992) (access to telephone as reasonable accommodation for independent test)
- State v. Gregg, 615 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2000) (questions of law reviewable; standard for suppression of evidence)
- Lock v. Moore, 541 N.W.2d 84 (N.D. 1995) (duty of arresting officer regarding independent test)