Schlittenhart v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
865 N.W.2d 825
| N.D. | 2015Background
- On Sept. 29, 2013, Trooper arrested Teresa Schlittenhart for DWI; a blood test showed .086. A temporary permit and report were mailed Oct. 15; Schlittenhart requested a hearing Oct. 23.
- Hearing was noticed for Nov. 13 but rescheduled to Nov. 14 because the arresting officer was unavailable on the 13th; Nov. 14 was the last permissible hearing date under statute.
- Schlittenhart and the arresting officer appeared in person on Nov. 14; her attorney appeared by telephone because of a medical procedure.
- During cross-examination the attorney’s call disconnected; the hearing officer attempted to reconnect, left voicemail, gave a short grace period, and then proceeded with the hearing (leaving the record open until 5:00 p.m. for filings).
- The hearing officer admitted the report/notice, preserved objections, and ultimately suspended Schlittenhart’s license for 91 days; the district court reversed and remanded for a new hearing, and the Department appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scheduling the hearing for Nov. 14 (when attorney unavailable in person) was an abuse of discretion | Schlittenhart: officer manipulated scheduling to coincide with counsel’s surgery, denying meaningful representation | DOT: date was within statutory 30‑day limit and chosen so both trooper and driver could appear in person; attorney offered telephonic or substitute counsel options | No abuse of discretion — hearing officer permissibly scheduled within statutory constraints |
| Whether the Department may require in‑person attendance of the driver’s attorney | Schlittenhart: telephonic representation curtailed meaningful participation | DOT: telephonic appearance by counsel is permissible; statute requires in‑person hearings for driver and trooper, not counsel | Court: statutory requirement for in‑person testimony applies to witnesses, not to driver’s counsel; counsel may appear telephonically |
| Whether proceeding after counsel disconnected denied due process | Schlittenhart: continuing without counsel prejudiced ability to cross‑examine and present testimony | DOT: officer tried to reconnect, offered options (testify, cross‑examine, file brief), left record open until 5 p.m.; no showing of prejudice | No due process violation — hearing officer reasonably accommodated and plaintiff failed to show prejudice |
| Whether admission of report/notice without counsel present violated evidentiary or due process rights | Schlittenhart: admission over objection after disconnection was improper | DOT: report/notice is prima facie admissible per statute and precedent; objections preserved | Admission upheld — exhibit admissible and objections preserved; no showing of inadmissibility or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Landsiedel v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 774 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 2009) (statute requires in‑person hearings for driver and officer; Department cannot unilaterally require telephonic testimony from witnesses)
- Wolfer v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 780 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 2010) (criticizes telephonic witness testimony because demeanor and credibility assessment are impaired)
- Baesler v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 812 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 2012) (hearing officers have broad discretion to manage scheduling and procedural matters)
- Siewert v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bur., 554 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 1996) (appeals are from judgments; remand judgments can be final and appealable)
- Municipal Servs. Corp. v. State, 483 N.W.2d 560 (N.D. 1992) (district court decisions vacating agency decisions and remanding for further proceedings are appealable)