Holbach v. City of Minot
2012 ND 71
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Schock was stopped for a traffic violation at 12:54 a.m. on March 13, 2011, and police detected the odor of alcohol.
- He failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested for DWI, then taken to the Mercer County Sheriff’s Office for a breath test using an Intoxilyzer 8000.
- Breath test printout shows start at 1:56 a.m. with two samples at 3:01 a.m. and 3:07 a.m.; lowest BAC was 0.184%.
- Schock received a temporary operator’s permit under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1 notifying of the Department’s intended suspension.
- A hearing was held; exhibits including the Intoxilyzer results and the Department’s report were admitted over objection.
- The hearing officer ultimately found the breath test occurred within two hours, relying in part on daylight saving time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breath test occurred within two hours of driving | Schock contends no evidence shows two-hour window met. | Department argues DST and record support timely test within two hours. | Breath test within two hours supported by record |
| Whether daylight saving time affects timing and admissibility | DST was not properly accounted for in timing. | DST properly noticed; manual indicates automatic time adjustment. | DST properly inferred; timing consistent with two-hour window |
| Whether hearing officer’s failure to “immediately deliver” decision deprives jurisdiction | Delay in delivering decision violated § 39-20-05(5) and voids suspension. | Timeliness is not a basic mandatory provision; no prejudice shown. | Mailing delay did not deprive authority; not a basic mandatory provision |
| Whether the Department’s non-strict compliance warrants reversal or fee shift under § 28-32-50 | Non-compliance with § 39-20-05(5) justifies fees against the Department. | Non-compliance not fatal; damages depend on prejudice and necessity. | Fees denied; Schock not prevailing party |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Moore, 539 N.W.2d 862 (N.D. 1995) (record-based review; defer to agency credibility)
- Aamodt v. N.D. Department of Transportation, 682 N.W.2d 308 (N.D. 2004) (details of mandatory vs non-mandatory compliance; authority to suspend)
- Samdahl v. N.D. Department of Transportation Dir., 518 N.W.2d 714 (N.D. 1994) (non-basic provisions may be non-prejudicial)
- Erickson v. Dir., N.D. Department of Transportation, 507 N.W.2d 537 (N.D. 1993) (administrative appeal standard and authority review)
- Schwind v. Dir., N.D. Department of Transportation, 462 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1990) (mandatory grounds for suspension)
- Jorgensen v. N.D. Department of Transportation, 2005 ND 80 (N.D. 2005) (jurisdictional requirements to suspend)
- Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412 (N.D. 1994) (administrative timing and authority to suspend)
- Landsiedel v. Dir., N.D. Department of Transportation, 2009 ND 196 (N.D. 2009) (limits on in-person hearing and delivery requirements)