Deeth v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2014 ND 232

Deeth was found alone in the backseat of his parked vehicle at an I‑94 rest area, surrounded by open alcoholic containers, smelling of alcohol, with slurred speech and bloodshot, glossy eyes.
A trooper administered field sobriety tests and an on‑site Alco‑Sensor showing .301; Deeth was arrested for actual physical control while under the influence and refused a blood test after implied‑consent advisement.
At the administrative hearing the officer testified he did a brief search but could not find ignition keys, had no evidence whether the battery was dead, and had contacted a tow service; the hearing officer found the battery was dead and keys not located, and noted nearby 24‑hour vehicle services could make the vehicle operable.
The hearing officer revoked Deeth’s license for 180 days for refusing the blood test after arrest, finding there were reasonable grounds (probable cause) to believe he was in actual physical control while under the influence.
The district court reversed, concluding the hearing officer’s factual findings (particularly about ability to manipulate controls and availability of jumper/assistance) were unsupported by the record; the Department appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue	Deeth's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether the hearing officer’s findings supported "reasonable grounds" (probable cause) that Deeth was in actual physical control while under the influence	Hearing officer’s findings about battery/keys and nearby services were unsupported; without proof Deeth could manipulate controls, actual physical control (or probable cause) is lacking	Undisputed facts (alone in vehicle in public place, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, open containers, failed sobriety tests, high Alco‑Sensor reading, admission of drinking, search for keys) suffice for probable cause	Supreme Court reversed district court; held the undisputed facts established reasonable grounds (probable cause) even if actual physical control was not proved by a preponderance
Whether proof of actual physical control by a preponderance was required to support revocation for refusal to submit to testing after arrest	Deeth/district court treated revocation as requiring proof of actual physical control by preponderance	The statute requires only reasonable grounds (probable cause) to believe the offense occurred, plus arrest and refusal; actual physical control need not be proved at the administrative hearing	Court held revocation under N.D.C.C. §39‑20‑05(3) turns on probable cause, arrest, and refusal; probable cause was shown

DuPaul v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 672 N.W.2d 680 (N.D. 2003) (procedural avenues to challenge administrative revocation)
Vanlishout v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 799 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 2011) (standard of review for agency factual findings)
Haynes v. Dir., Dep’t of Transp., 851 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 2014) (deference to agency factual determinations)
Wampler v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 842 N.W.2d 877 (N.D. 2014) (agency fact‑finding deference cited)
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979) (weight‑of‑evidence test for agency findings)
Hoover v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 748 N.W.2d 730 (N.D. 2008) (probable cause not requiring knowledge of guilt‑level facts)
Hawes v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 741 N.W.2d 202 (N.D. 2007) (elements of actual physical control)
Obrigewitch v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 653 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 2002) (respecting district court analysis of administrative record)