State v. Baatz, 2011 ND 195

State appeals three district court orders dismissing several controlled substances charges against Nickel.
Board adopted emergency interim final rule adding seven banned substances, including synthetic cannabinoids and mephedrone, to ND’s controlled substances list.
Notice for the emergency rule hearing did not specify the seven substances; public meeting occurred with media present and Nickel in attendance.
Executive director sent rule materials to Legislative Council and requested earliest possible publication; interim rule published in Administrative Code later, after final rule approval.
Nickel was charged in 2010 under the interim rule; district court dismissed, finding lack of substantial compliance with notice requirements under ND law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board substantially complied with notice requirements for emergency interim final rule	State argues substantial compliance; notices and media coverage sufficed	Nickel argues no substantial compliance; rule invalid	No; Board failed substantial compliance; rule invalid at crimes' time
Whether district court’s dismissal proper given invalid rule	Charges should proceed under valid rule	Dismissal appropriate due to invalid rule	Dismissal affirmed; rule invalid at time of alleged crimes

Illies v. Illies, 462 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1990) (substantial compliance standard governs agency rulemaking review)
Mullins v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Services, 454 N.W.2d 732 (N.D. 1990) (judicial review of substantial compliance with rulemaking procedures)
Smith v. State, 389 N.W.2d 808 (N.D. 1986) (substantial compliance requires factual findings supported by record)
Batla v. North Dakota State Univ., 370 N.W.2d 554 (N.D. 1985) (procedural compliance in rulemaking reviewed for error)
Stensrud v. Mayville State Coll., 368 N.W.2d 519 (N.D. 1985) (notice and compliance issues in agency termination cases)