Davis v. State, 2013 ND 34

In February 2012, a Highway Patrol officer stopped Morrow for 81 mph in a 65 mph zone and observed glossy, bloodshot eyes with the odor of alcohol.
Morrow admitted drinking a beer with dinner and underwent field sobriety tests; he refused the SD-5 onsite screening test.
The Officer completed a Report and Notice, checked Refused onsite screening test, listed the traffic violation as the reason for the stop, and wrote N/A for probable cause to arrest.
A Department hearing officer suspended Morrow’s driving privileges for one year, and the district court affirmed.
The core issue is whether the Report and Notice must explicitly state the officer’s belief that the driver’s body contained alcohol, which is required to underpin a valid suspension under the statutory framework.
The Court reverses, holding the Report was deficient for failing to indicate the officer’s belief that Morrow’s body contained alcohol, thereby depriving the Department of authority to suspend his license.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is explicit belief that the body contains alcohol required	Morrow argues the statute requires explicit recording	Department argues implication from refusal suffices	Yes; explicit belief required
Does failure to record belief render the report deficient	Morrow contends report lacks necessary element	Department argues inferred belief from actions suffices	Yes; report deficient without explicit belief
Is the form inherently defective or merely misused	Form itself not defective if completed properly	Form can be filled to reflect belief	Form itself not defective; officer’s completion caused deficiency

Aamodt v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 682 N.W.2d 308 (ND 2004) (mandatory grounds for suspension include proper probable cause)
Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 695 N.W.2d 212 (ND 2005) (failure to record results can render report deficient)
Lange v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 790 N.W.2d 28 (ND 2010) (agency review respect for findings; standard of review)