842 N.W.2d 865
N.D.2014Background
- Michael Hamre, a commercial driver, was arrested for DUI on May 3, 2012; DOT administratively suspended his Class D (noncommercial) license effective May 28, 2012.
- DOT issued a commercial license disqualification notice May 29, 2012 and postponed the disqualification while Hamre requested an administrative hearing.
- Administrative hearing occurred; hearing officer recommended that an administrative suspension qualifies as a "conviction" under N.D.C.C. § 39-06.2-10(7); DOT denied reconsideration and set a one-year commercial disqualification to begin January 13, 2013.
- Hamre appealed to district court arguing DOT misapplied the statute, that the statute is void for vagueness, that the disqualification commencement date was wrong, and seeking attorney fees.
- District court affirmed DOT; this appeal followed. The court declined to consider the commencement-date argument because it was not specified in Hamre’s specifications of error.
Issues
| Issue | Hamre's Argument | DOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an administrative suspension of a noncommercial license counts as a "conviction" under N.D.C.C. § 39-06.2-10(7) | The administrative suspension is not a conviction and cannot trigger commercial disqualification | The special definition of "conviction" in § 39-06.2-02(8) includes administrative determinations and applies to § 39-06.2-10(7) | Held: Administrative suspension is a "conviction" for § 39-06.2-10(7) purposes (affirmed) |
| Whether § 39-06.2-10(7) is unconstitutionally vague | Statute is vague because different definitions of "conviction" appear in the Code | DOT: judicial interpretation (Bienek) clarifies meaning and provides notice | Held: Not void for vagueness; Bienek and precedent cure any ambiguity |
| Whether the one-year disqualification commenced May 29, 2012 rather than January 13, 2013 | Hamre contends disqualification should start May 29, 2012 | DOT and district court: issue not preserved—not in specifications of error | Held: Not addressed on appeal (unpreserved) |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1) | Hamre seeks fees if DOT order reversed | DOT argues no award if appellant loses | Held: Denied—Hamre did not prevail on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bienek v. Dep’t of Transp., 736 N.W.2d 492 (N.D. 2007) (special-definition of “conviction” in the commercial-license chapter includes administrative determinations)
- State v. Storbakken, 552 N.W.2d 78 (N.D. 1996) (administrative suspension is separate from criminal proceedings)
- City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 729 N.W.2d 120 (N.D. 2007) (void-for-vagueness standard—statute must give adequate notice and enforcement guidance)