910 N.W.2d 850
N.D.2018Background
- In early morning June 3, 2017, a Traill County deputy observed Krueger driving erratically northbound on Highway 18 and followed him across the county line into Grand Forks County before Krueger stopped.
- The deputy observed signs of intoxication, conducted field sobriety tests (which Krueger failed), and placed Krueger under arrest for DUI.
- The deputy transported Krueger to the Traill County sheriff’s office in Hillsboro for chemical testing; three breath tests were administered: the first lacked a required implied-consent advisory, the second terminated due to radio interference, and the third produced a valid 0.141% BAC.
- Krueger challenged (1) the deputy’s jurisdiction to arrest him in Grand Forks County and (2) admissibility/constitutionality of three breath tests at the administrative license-suspension hearing; he did not testify or present evidence at the hearing.
- The Department suspended Krueger’s license for two years; the district court affirmed, and Krueger appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Traill County deputy had jurisdiction to arrest in Grand Forks County | Krueger: deputy lacked authority once in another county and Grand Forks deputy was present and available | DOT: deputy was in "fresh pursuit," allowed to enter another county under N.D.C.C. § 11-15-33(2) and effect the arrest | Court: Affirmed — deputy had jurisdiction under fresh-pursuit statute; arrival of Grand Forks deputy did not negate authority |
| Whether multiple breath tests violated statutory or constitutional protections | Krueger: multiple requests and repeated advisories rendered tests invalid or consent involuntary; statutory/constitutional rights violated | DOT: Multiple tests are permitted; first two tests were invalid for procedural/substantive reasons and third produced the only valid result | Court: Affirmed — administering three tests was reasonable; first lacked advisory, second aborted by interference, third valid; no evidence consent was involuntary |
| Whether admission of breath test results required suppression under Broeckel principle | Krueger: reliance on Broeckel to bar subsequent tests or require exclusion | DOT: Broeckel does not create absolute bar; law permits multiple tests to obtain a valid result | Court: Affirmed DOT view — Broeckel prevents abusive "shopping" but does not bar reasonable repeated testing to obtain a valid result |
| Whether administrative findings were supported by preponderance of evidence | Krueger: factual findings (fresh pursuit; reasonableness of tests) unsupported | DOT: Hearing officer’s findings are supported by record and reasonable inferences | Court: Affirmed — findings supported by preponderance; legal conclusions reviewed de novo and sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinson v. Levi, 903 N.W.2d 286 (N.D. 2017) (standard of review for agency factual findings and constitutional claims)
- Maher v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 510 N.W.2d 601 (N.D. 1994) (officer in hot/fresh pursuit may arrest across jurisdictional lines to prevent escape)
- Broeckel v. Moore, 498 N.W.2d 170 (N.D. 1993) (limits on repeated chemical testing to prevent "shopping" for incriminating results)
- Storbakken v. State, 552 N.W.2d 78 (N.D. 1996) (motorist may be required to submit to a reasonable request for a second test)
- Kroschel v. Levi, 866 N.W.2d 109 (N.D. 2015) (general rule that officers acting outside jurisdiction lack arrest power)
- Fleckenstein v. State, 907 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 2018) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness of consent to testing)