Korb v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation, 918 N.W.2d 49

Officer stopped Korb for suspected speeding; observed signs of impairment and Korb admitted he "felt a little buzzed."
Korb failed field sobriety tests; officer read an implied consent advisory (twice) and administered a preliminary breath test that was over the presumptive limit.
After arrest and Miranda warning, Korb consented to a chemical blood test; results showed BAC above the legal limit.
At the administrative hearing Korb moved to exclude the blood test evidence, arguing (1) the officer prefaced the statutory implied-consent warning with additional language that was misleading, and (2) the record failed to show scrupulous compliance with Form 104 chain-of-custody/packaging steps.
The hearing officer admitted the top portion of Form 104 but not the checklist; relied on the arresting officer’s testimony about sealing and packaging the vial. Department suspended Korb’s license 91 days; district court affirmed. Supreme Court reviewed under the Administrative Agencies Practice Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Korb)	Defendant's Argument (DOT)	Held
Whether officer’s prefatory language invalidated the implied-consent advisory	The additional language before the statutory advisory was inaccurate/misleading and rendered the advisory noncompliant per O’Connor	The statutory advisory language required by § 39-20-01(3) was included; officers may add accurate, noncoercive information	Court held added accurate statutory language did not render the advisory invalid or consent involuntary
Whether blood-test evidence was inadmissible for lack of scrupulous compliance with Form 104	Officer testimony did not demonstrate compliance with checklist steps 2 and 3 (sealing label and packaging) so evidence should be excluded	Testimony described sealing the tube, placing it in protector and packaging; lab submission form corroborated receipt in sealed container	Court held officer’s detailed testimony and lab submission were sufficient to show scrupulous compliance; results admissible

State v. O’Connor, 877 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 2016) (requires inclusion of the specific warning from § 39-20-01(3) in implied-consent advisories)
McCoy v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 848 N.W.2d 659 (N.D. 2014) (administrative penalties attached to refusal do not alone render consent coerced)
Filkowski v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 862 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 2015) (Form 104 checklist is prima facie evidence of fair administration when submitted)
State v. Keller, 833 N.W.2d 486 (N.D. 2013) (deviations that could not affect test reliability do not render results inadmissible)
Leno v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t. of Transp., 870 N.W.2d 455 (N.D. 2015) (participant testimony may prove scrupulous compliance when checklist is not in evidence)
State v. Jordheim, 508 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1993) (officer testimony verifying sealing, initialing, packaging established scrupulous compliance)
Schlosser v. N.D. Dep’t. of Transp., 775 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 2009) (conclusory testimony was insufficient to show compliance)
State v. Fleckenstein, 907 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 2018) (voluntariness of consent judged by totality of circumstances)
Krueger v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 910 N.W.2d 850 (N.D. 2018) (accurate additional information does not by itself vitiate voluntary consent)