Daniels v. Ziegler, 2013 ND 157

Daniels had driving privileges suspended for 365 days by the Department of Transportation following a DUI-driving-while-in-control event; the district court reversed, and the Department appealed to reinstate the suspension.
On March 7, 2012 a deputy discovered Daniels in a running pickup stuck in a ditch with a trailer; Daniels exhibited confusion, admitted he had been in a ditch, and a faint odor of alcohol plus an open beer were observed.
Daniels submitted to field sobriety tests and an SD-5 test showing 0.09; blood test yielded 0.084 g/100ml; the report form listed 0.08% without clear designation of blood alcohol concentration.
Daniels argued the deputy failed to properly complete the report and Form 104; the Department found the deputy acted under a community caretaking function and that noncompliance with form requirements was not fatal.
The district court relied on a “bright-line rule” requiring the words “by weight” after the test numerals and held the Department lacked authority under ND law; the court reversed and ordered reinstatement, while Daniels pursued further specifications of error.
The Court of Appeals held Daniels’ specifications of error were boilerplate or incorporated by reference and therefore insufficient to preserve those issues for review, and affirmed reinstatement of the Department’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Daniels’ specifications of error sufficiently specific?”,	Daniels claims the district court lacked specific, non-boilerplate error assertions.	Department contends the specifications were adequate under applicable precedents.	No; specifications were insufficient and boilerplate, requiring reversal of the district court.
Did the district court properly address the Department’s authority given alleged noncompliance with statutes 39-20-03.1 and 39-07-10?”,	Daniels asserted noncompliance voided the Department’s authority.	Department argued authority was not negated by the cited noncompliance.	Not addressed on the merits due to deficient specifications of error; affirmed reinstatement of the Department’s decision.
May Daniels rely on arguments by incorporation by reference from the district court to the appellate brief?”,	Daniels incorporated earlier district-court arguments.	Incorporation by reference is improper.	Disapproved; such incorporated arguments are inadequately briefed and not considered.

Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 676 N.W.2d 799 ((N.D. 2004)) (boilerplate specifications justify dismissal of appeals)
Morrow v. Ziegler, 826 N.W.2d 912 ((N.D. 2013)) (appellate review procedures require precise specifications)
Richter v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 786 N.W.2d 716 ((N.D. 2010)) (limits on jurisdictional review of agency decisions)
Vetter v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 451 ((N.D. 1996)) (boilerplate error assertions unsupported)
Isaak v. Sprynczynatyk, 642 N.W.2d 860 ((N.D. 2002)) (specifications must identify true issues on appeal)
Bienek v. Department of Transp., 736 N.W.2d 492 ((N.D. 2007)) (clarified standards for driver’s-license suspension appeals)