Glaser v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
2017 ND 253
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Alexis Glaser was involved in a single-vehicle crash in Bismarck; arresting officers observed signs of intoxication and an on-site screening showed elevated BAC.
- Officer Gallagher arrested Glaser, transported her to the police station, and obtained an Intoxilyzer breath test showing BAC .199 at 3:55 a.m.
- Gallagher completed a Department report and notice listing the time of driving/crash as 2:37 a.m.; the crash report prepared by Officer Rasmussen also listed 2:37 a.m. and identified Glaser as the driver.
- At the administrative hearing Gallagher testified he did not know the exact crash time and that 2:37 a.m. on his form reflected the time of the dispatch call; Rasmussen did not testify.
- The Department hearing officer inferred from the crash report and other facts that Glaser drove at about 2:37 a.m., suspended her license for two years, and found the chemical test was within two hours of driving.
- The district court reversed, finding the Department failed to establish the chemical test was performed within two hours of driving; the Supreme Court reviewed the administrative record and reinstated the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glaser) | Defendant's Argument (DOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Department’s report and crash report sufficient prima facie evidence that the chemical test was within two hours of driving? | The time of driving was unsupported and placed into question at the hearing; admissible documents did not establish time. | The report and notice (plus Rasmussen’s crash report) are prima facie evidence of time; Glaser failed to rebut it. | DOT: Glaser failed to rebut the prima facie evidence; reports admissible and sufficient. |
| Did the record support the hearing officer’s finding by a preponderance that Glaser drove within two hours of the test? | No—Gallagher lacked firsthand knowledge of crash time and Rasmussen did not testify, so time was speculative. | Yes—crash report, admissions, and reasonable inferences support a conclusion Glaser drove within two hours. | Court: A reasoning mind could conclude Glaser drove within two hours; suspension reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavek v. Moore, 562 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1997) (report-and-notice can be prima facie evidence of time but time of driving may be placed in question at hearing)
- Dawson v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 830 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 2013) (time of driving must be supported by record; insufficient evidence requires reinstatement of privileges)
- Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 676 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 2004) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can support conclusion that defendant drove within two hours)