883 N.W.2d 464
N.D.2016Background
- Tyler Ell was stopped for speeding; officers detected alcohol odor, and an onsite screening showed 0.144 BAC. Ell was arrested and later submitted to an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test showing 0.158 BAC.
- Deputy Janisch administered the field sobriety tests and the Intoxilyzer test; Corporal Meadows made the initial stop but did not testify at the administrative hearing.
- The Department’s hearing officer found Janisch certified, the Intoxilyzer test was fairly administered per the approved method, and ordered a 91-day suspension. The district court affirmed.
- On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Ell argued (1) no reasonable-suspicion evidence supported the stop because Meadows did not testify, (2) continued detention was an unlawful seizure, and (3) the Intoxilyzer result was inadmissible because the approved method (installation by a field inspector) was not shown.
- The Court found sufficient evidence to impute Meadows’ observations to Janisch and sufficient grounds to expand the stop based on alcohol indicators, but held the Department failed to show strict compliance with the Intoxilyzer 8000 approved method (no proof device was installed by a field inspector) and admitted the test result erroneously. The Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Ell's Argument | Director's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop Ell? | Meadows stopped for speeding but did not testify; Janisch’s testimony about Meadows is hearsay and insufficient. | Officer-to-officer statements may be imputed; Janisch relayed Meadows’ reason for the stop. | Held: Officer-to-officer testimony admissible; reasonable suspicion supported the stop. |
| Was continued detention after the stop an unreasonable seizure? | Detention while waiting for Janisch was unlawful because no reasons were proved for the extended detention. | Meadows observed alcohol odor and admission of drinking; Janisch observed odor, glossy eyes, poor balance—reasonable suspicion to expand the stop. | Held: Continued detention reasonable; officers developed reasonable suspicion to investigate DUI. |
| Was the Intoxilyzer test ‘‘fairly administered’’ under N.D.C.C. §39‑20‑07? | Approved method requires device be installed by a field inspector; no proof of such installation was offered, so scientific accuracy not shown. | The Intoxilyzer was inspected at the crime lab; Department contends inspection suffices and relocation does not affect admissibility. | Held: Reversed admission — Department failed to show strict compliance with the approved method (no proof of field-inspector installation); expert testimony required but not offered. |
| Did the hearing officer abuse discretion or misapply law by admitting the breath result? | Admission was legal error because foundational elements under §39‑20‑07 were not met. | Admission was proper based on certified documents and testimony that Janisch followed the approved method. | Held: Hearing officer abused discretion and misapplied law in admitting the Intoxilyzer result; decision unsupported by preponderance of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Filkowski v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 862 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 2015) (standard for agency fact‑finding review and admissibility preliminaries)
- Barros v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 751 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2008) (reasoning‑mind standard for agency findings)
- Herrman v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 847 N.W.2d 768 (N.D. 2014) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for traffic stops)
- Pesanti v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 839 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 2013) (totality‑of‑circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- Osaba v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 812 N.W.2d 440 (N.D. 2012) (imputing one officer’s knowledge to another for probable cause/reasonable suspicion)
- City of Minot v. Keller, 745 N.W.2d 638 (N.D. 2008) (officer‑to‑officer communications presumptively reliable)
- Franzen, 792 N.W.2d 533 (N.D. 2010) (scope and duration of traffic stop; expansion if new reasonable suspicion arises)
- Lee v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 673 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 2004) (scientific accuracy requires strict compliance with approved methods or expert testimony)
- Van Zomeren, 879 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2016) (if documentary proof of strict compliance lacking, expert testimony is required to admit chemical test)
- Frank v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 849 N.W.2d 248 (N.D. 2014) (documents may substitute for testimony when they show scrupulous compliance)
- Ringsaker v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 596 N.W.2d 328 (N.D. 1999) (same principle on requirement of strict compliance for scientific reliability)