906 N.W.2d 73
N.D.2018Background
- In Oct 2016 DOT notified Trent Guthmiller of a 60‑day disqualification of his commercial driving privileges for having "two serious traffic violations within a three‑year period."
- Guthmiller committed a speeding violation on Feb 19, 2013 (convicted Feb 26, 2013) and an aggravated reckless driving violation on Mar 14, 2015 (convicted Oct 24, 2016).
- The violations were committed within three years of each other; the convictions were about 3 years and 8 months apart.
- At the administrative hearing Guthmiller conceded commission of the violations; the hearing officer recommended against disqualification, concluding the statute requires two convictions within three years.
- The DOT director reversed, interpreting the statute to require two violations committed within three years (irrespective of conviction dates), and imposed the 60‑day disqualification; the district court affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute unambiguously requires two convictions within three years to trigger disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guthmiller) | Defendant's Argument (DOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.D.C.C. § 39‑06.2‑10(15) requires two convictions within three years or two violations committed within three years to disqualify commercial driving privileges | Statute requires two convictions within a three‑year period; Guthmiller's convictions were outside three years, so disqualification improper | Statute targets commission of two serious violations within three years; conviction dates are irrelevant; federal guidance supports this reading | Court held the statute is unambiguous and requires two convictions within three years; DOT’s disqualification was not in accordance with law |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamre v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 842 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 2014) (deference to agency in license suspension appeals but statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Harter v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 694 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 2005) (statutory interpretation in agency appeals is a question of law subject to full review)
- Doyle v. Sprynczynatyk, 621 N.W.2d 353 (N.D. 2001) (statutes ambiguous if susceptible to differing but rational meanings; interpret statutes to give meaning to every word)