Pokrzywinski v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2014 ND 131

Pokrzywinski was arrested for DUI after a June 15, 2013 single-vehicle motorcycle crash and received a Report and Notice form suspending his driving privileges.
He requested an administrative hearing, which occurred on July 9, 2013, and was later upheld by the hearing officer.
At the scene and in hospital, officers observed an odor of alcohol and Pokrzywinski admitted consuming two beers.
Pokrzywinski’s blood test was refused; the officer initially did not advise the implied-consent law because more than two hours had elapsed, but advised it again later.
The hearing officer suspended privileges for three years, the district court affirmed, and Pokrzywinski appeals challenging the grounds for suspension and his ability to refuse testing.
The court affirms, holding that the Report and Notice form showed probable cause and that Pokrzywinski was capable of refusing or not refusing testing as a matter of fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest for DUI	Pokrzywinski argues the form failed to show probable cause.	The State contends the form linked crash, odor of alcohol, and admissions to alcohol satisfied probable cause.	Yes; probable cause shown; suspension affirmed.
Whether Pokrzywinski could validly refuse testing given injuries	Injuries rendered him incapable of refusal.	The record lacks clear evidence of incapacity to refuse.	No; findings support Pokrzywinski was not incapacitated; valid refusal not shown.
Whether implied-consent withdrawal required explicit refusal or could be inferred	Consent presumed; withdrawal requires explicit refusal due to condition.	Implied consent may be withdrawn based on circumstances; factual determination required.	Withdrawal requires a factual finding; record supports that Pokrzywinski did not explicitly withdraw through an effective refusal.

Presteng v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 579 N.W.2d 212 (ND 1998) (probable cause standard for DUI arrest based on accident plus alcohol evidence)
Moran v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 543 N.W.2d 767 (ND 1996) (probable cause includes signs of impairment and alcohol consumption)
Aamodt v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 682 N.W.2d 308 (ND 2004) (probable cause for DUI arrest when accident with alcohol evidence exists)
Engstrom v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 807 N.W.2d 602 (ND 2011) (reliability of credibility determinations in administrative hearing)
Obrigewitch v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 653 N.W.2d 73 (ND 2002) (fact-specific assessment of whether driver withdrew implied consent)
Pokrzywinski v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp. (cited from opinion), 2014 ND 131 (ND 2014) (administrative license suspension review standard)
Douglas v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 385 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (unconsciousness and incapacity to refuse can be evidenced by medical condition)
Stiles v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 369 N.W.2d 347 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (disoriented reading of implied-consent advisement; capacity to refuse)
Groscost v. Dep’t of Transp., 596 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991) (medical evidence not required to prove incapacity when injury is obvious)
Pesanti v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 839 N.W.2d 851 (ND 2013) (limited review of agency credibility determinations)
Potratz v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 843 N.W.2d 305 (ND 2014) (typical administrative license suspension review standards)