Crawford v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2017 ND 103

In Jan. 2016 an officer stopped Ryan Crawford after observing his vehicle swerve over the centerline on a residential street; Crawford was arrested for DUI and submitted to a warrantless blood test showing BAC over the legal limit.
Crawford requested an administrative hearing; he did not testify at the hearing. The Department suspended his driving privileges for two years and the district court affirmed.
Crawford appealed, arguing (1) the initial stop lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion because the video did not show him crossing the centerline, and (2) his consent to the warrantless blood draw was involuntary and the blood result should be suppressed in the administrative suspension proceeding.
The hearing officer credited the arresting officer’s testimony that Crawford crossed the centerline; the appellate court defers to the agency’s factfinding unless unsupported by the record.
The court assumed, for purposes of the appeal (per Beylund), that consent to the blood draw was involuntary but considered whether the exclusionary rule required suppression in the civil administrative context.

Issue	Crawford's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle	Video shows only slight left movements and did not show crossing centerline; stop was unsupported	Officer observed vehicle cross centerline; traffic violation supplies reasonable suspicion	Stop was supported; officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion
Whether blood test results must be excluded in administrative suspension because consent was involuntary	Implied-consent advisory misstates law; consent was not knowing/ voluntary so results should be suppressed	Under statutory scheme and Beylund, exclusionary rule does not require suppression in civil license suspension proceedings	Even assuming involuntary consent, results need not be suppressed in the administrative proceeding

Beylund v. Levi, 889 N.W.2d 907 (2017 ND 30) (exclusionary rule does not require suppression of warrantless blood-test results in civil administrative license suspension)
Koehly v. Levi, 886 N.W.2d 689 (2016 ND 202) (standards for judicial review of administrative license actions)
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979) (appellate review defers to agency factfinding when a reasoning mind could accept evidence)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (traffic violation provides objective basis for stop)
State v. Fields, 662 N.W.2d 242 (2003 ND 81) (traffic violations supply suspicion for investigatory stops)
Hammeren v. N.D. State Highway Comm’r, 315 N.W.2d 679 (N.D. 1982) (factual determinations about a driver’s confusion/voluntariness are for the finder of fact)