Olson v. Levi
2015 ND 250
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Early morning, May 16, 2014: Deputy LeClair approached an SUV in a motel parking lot after a detainee asked him to speak to a friend; Olson was in the driver’s seat and rolled her window down about an inch.
- LeClair smelled alcohol, Olson admitted drinking, failed field sobriety tests, initially refused a breath test, then consented to a blood test after being read the implied consent advisory; blood-alcohol was 0.208%.
- Officer completed a Report and Notice form listing time, location (Brick City Motel parking lot), checked “already stopped,” and checked probable-cause boxes including “odor of alcoholic beverage,” “poor balance,” and “failed field sobriety test(s).”
- Department of Transportation suspended Olson’s driving privileges for two years; Olson requested an administrative hearing and appealed the suspension to district court, which affirmed the Department; Olson appealed to the Supreme Court.
- Central legal dispute: whether the Report and Notice form provided sufficient information to authorize the Department’s administrative suspension and whether implied-consent/refusal statutes are constitutional as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Report and Notice form sufficiently described grounds to show driving or actual physical control | Olson: form failed to designate she was driving or in actual physical control and lacked a statement describing how officer believed she was in control | Levi: form showed reasonable grounds via checked boxes and brief explanations (location, odor, failed tests, "already stopped") | Held: form sufficient; precedents do not require a detailed written narrative in actual-physical-control cases |
| Whether implied consent advisory coerced consent to chemical test | Olson: advisory and penalties coerced consent, making consent involuntary | Levi: advisory accurately informed consequences and presented a choice; not coercive | Held: advisory and consent procedure constitutional; prior decisions reject coercion argument |
| Whether criminal refusal statutes and implied consent scheme violate constitutional protections (due process, vagueness, unconstitutional conditions) | Olson: statutes violate N.D. Const. art. I, § 20 and other constitutional protections | Levi: statutes upheld by prior decisions as conforming to constitutional requirements | Held: court rejected challenges and declined to revisit settled precedent upholding statutes |
| Whether Department’s suspension decision was contrary to law or unsupported by facts | Olson: administrative action lacked statutory authority because of deficient report | Levi: Department decision supported by report and evidence of BAC > legal limit | Held: suspension affirmed; findings supported and procedures complied with law |
Key Cases Cited
- Aamodt v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 682 N.W.2d 308 (N.D. 2004) (officer must include basic, mandatory probable-cause information on Report and Notice for suspension authority)
- Morrow v. Ziegler, 826 N.W.2d 912 (N.D. 2013) (Report and Notice insufficient where officer failed to record belief that arrestee’s body contained alcohol)
- Brewer v. Ziegler, 743 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 2007) (checked probable-cause boxes plus brief notes were adequate for suspension in an actual-physical-control case)
- Maisey v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 775 N.W.2d 200 (N.D. 2009) (officer’s checked boxes indicating impairment and odor of alcohol can suffice without detailed narrative)
- State v. Birchfield, 858 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 2015) (criminal refusal statute upheld against Fourth Amendment and state-constitutional challenges)