McCoy v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
2014 ND 119
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Deputy stopped McCoy for a defective license-plate light; detected odor of alcohol and observed bloodshot/watery eyes. McCoy admitted drinking earlier and failed several field sobriety tests.
- Deputy administered an onsite breath screen (.196) and arrested McCoy for DWI. At the law enforcement center the deputy read the North Dakota implied-consent advisory and McCoy agreed to an Intoxilyzer 8000 chemical breath test (.203).
- Department issued a notice of intent to suspend McCoy’s driving privileges for 180 days; McCoy requested an administrative hearing. The hearing officer found McCoy had agreed to the test and suspended his license.
- McCoy appealed to district court, which affirmed; he appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court arguing the warrantless breath test violated the Fourth Amendment and state constitution because consent was coerced by the implied-consent advisory.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo the constitutional claim and the administrative record, applying the totality-of-the-circumstances voluntariness test for consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McCoy) | Defendant's Argument (DOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chemical breath test was a warrantless search requiring an exception to the warrant requirement | McCoy: test was a warrantless search and consent was coerced by the implied-consent advisory, so no valid exception existed | DOT: consent was actual and voluntary; implied-consent advisory and potential administrative penalty do not automatically render consent involuntary | Held: The test was a search but DOT met its burden — McCoy voluntarily consented under the totality of circumstances, so consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement |
| Whether North Dakota’s implied-consent scheme unconstitutionally conditions driving on surrender of Fourth Amendment rights (unconstitutional condition) | McCoy: statute effectively coerces surrender of constitutional rights by attaching license loss to refusal | DOT: (not fully briefed as separate issue) relied on established statutory scheme and prior precedents supporting implied consent and refusal consequences | Held: Court declined to decide the broader constitutional-condition challenge because it was not adequately briefed; rejected McCoy’s coercion claim as to voluntariness of his consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of the circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent is invalid where submission is in response to asserted authority such as a warrant)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (administration of breath tests is a search)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (admission of refusal and choice to submit not per se coercive under Fifth Amendment analysis)
- State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013) (implied-consent advisory alone does not render consent involuntary)
- Fossum v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 843 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 2014) (voluntariness and interplay of actual and implied consent under ND law)