863 N.W.2d 529
N.D.2015Background
- In March 2014 Burlington police stopped William S. Roberts after observing impaired driving; officer noted slurred speech, flushed face, odor of alcohol, and Roberts admitted drinking.
- Officer read implied-consent advisory, Roberts took an onsite breath screening test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14 that read 0.143 BAC, and Roberts was arrested for DUI.
- After arrest, officer again read the implied-consent advisory under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01 and requested a chemical blood test; Roberts refused the blood test according to officer testimony.
- Roberts’ driving record showed a prior suspension for BAC over the legal limit within seven years.
- The DOT hearing officer found Roberts refused the chemical test and imposed a two-year revocation under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04; the district court affirmed, and Roberts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether submitting to an onsite screening test precludes revocation for refusing a subsequent chemical test | Roberts: taking the onsite screening (0.143) means he did not refuse a chemical test and revocation is improper | DOT: onsite screening (§ 39-20-14) serves only to determine whether to give a further chemical test; refusal of the post-arrest chemical test (§ 39-20-01) supports revocation under § 39-20-04 | Court: Held for DOT — onsite screening is distinct; a refusal of the subsequent chemical test authorizes revocation and a reasoning mind could find Roberts refused |
| Credibility and sufficiency of evidence that Roberts refused the blood test | Roberts: testified he did not recall being asked or how he responded | DOT: officer testified Roberts expressly refused after being read implied-consent warning | Court: Held for DOT — deference to hearing officer’s credibility determinations; findings supported by the record |
| Appropriate length of revocation given prior record | Roberts: implied challenge to two-year period | DOT: § 39-20-04 mandates two-year revocation when prior suspension exists within seven years and refusal occurred | Court: Held for DOT — statutory criteria met, two-year revocation appropriate |
| Other procedural complaints (law clerk behavior, ex parte communications, pro se treatment) | Roberts: raised multiple procedural and treatment complaints on appeal | DOT: no response on merits; district court record used | Court: Held these issues abandoned for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Painte v. Dep’t of Transp., 2013 ND 95, 832 N.W.2d 319 (explains standard of review for agency findings and legal questions)
- Yellowbird v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2013 ND 131, 833 N.W.2d 536 (onsite screening tests are to assist probable-cause/arrest decisions)
- Brewer v. Ziegler, 2007 ND 207, 743 N.W.2d 391 (discusses purpose of onsite screening tests)
- Pokrzywinski v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2014 ND 131, 847 N.W.2d 776 (deference to hearing officer credibility determinations)
- Morrow v. Ziegler, 2013 ND 28, 826 N.W.2d 912 (district court analysis entitled to respect on agency review)
- Berger v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2011 ND 55, 795 N.W.2d 707 (agency decisions accorded great deference)
- Harter v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 70, 694 N.W.2d 677 (agency orders affirmed unless not in accordance with law)
- Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank of Fargo, N.A., 449 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 1989) (issues not briefed are deemed abandoned)