Mees v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2013 ND 36

Mees challenged a 91-day suspension of driving privileges for DUI after an administrative hearing upheld the suspension.
The administrative hearing found the Intoxilyzer test was administered according to the State Toxicologist’s approved method with a 20-minute wait period.
Mees's breath test result was .125 percent BAC.
Mees argued the Intoxilyzer record could not establish fair administration because the twenty-minute wait could not be ascertained from his arrival time at the station.
The district court reversed, holding the State could not prove fair administration; the Department appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Intoxilyzer test fairly administered?	Mees contends the record shows no basis to conclude a twenty-minute wait.	Mees failed to rebut the prima facie presumption of fair administration.	Yes; the record supports fair administration.
Should the district court's reversal be affirmed?	Mees argues the district court correctly evaluated the record.	The department argues the district court erred by second-guessing the fair-administration presumption.	No; the agency’s decision must be reinstated.

Thorsrud v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2012 ND 136 (N.D.) (establishes prima facie fair administration via Intoxilyzer records; rebuttal requires more than mere possibility of error)
Buchholtz v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2008 ND 53 (N.D.) (testimony and inference may establish twenty-minute wait; weight of evidence governs)
Johnson v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2004 ND 59 (N.D.) (reasonable inferences can satisfy twenty-minute waiting requirement)
Salter v. Hjelle, 415 N.W.2d 801 (N.D.) (recognizes that certified records prove fair administration)
Zimmerman v. State, 516 N.W.2d 638 (N.D.) (cited regarding fair administration standards)
Buchholz v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2002 ND 23 (N.D.) (recognizes inference-based ascertainment of twenty-minute wait)