State v. Bauer
2015 ND 132
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Bauer appeals a criminal judgment entered after a conditional guilty plea to refusing to submit to a chemical test.
- Police stopped Bauer for speeding early in the morning; Bauer showed signs of intoxication and refused field sobriety testing.
- Bauer took a preliminary breath test with a BAC over the legal limit, was arrested for DUI, and was Mirandized.
- At the jail, Bauer was asked to submit to a blood draw; he remained silent after multiple requests and was advised silence could be deemed a refusal.
- The officer warned that nonresponse would be considered a refusal; Bauer did not respond.
- The district court denied Bauer’s motion to suppress; Bauer entered a conditional guilty plea reserving appeal of Fifth Amendment and due process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-arrest silence can be used as a refusal under ND law | Bauer: silence invokes Fifth Amendment protections. | Bauer: use of silence as refusal violates self-incrimination protections. | Not a violation; silence can be used as a refusal under statute. |
| Whether the implied-consent warnings and procedures preserve constitutional rights | State: warnings align with case law and do not coerce. | Bauer: warnings conflict with Miranda, creating confusion. | Warnings and procedures are consistent with Beaton/Fields and do not violate rights. |
| Whether Beaton/Fields framework supports upholding use of silence as refusal | State: framework supports admissibility of refusal by silence. | Bauer: distinctions in Fields negate use of silence as evidence. | Fields/Beaton framework supports using silence as refusal. |
| Whether South Dakota v. Neville and Doyle v. Ohio influence the outcome | State: Neville permits use of silence as non-testimonial, not testimonial. | Bauer: Doyle suggests not using silence against a suspect. | Neville controls; using silence as refusal does not violate Fifth Amendment per Neville. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beaton, 516 N.W.2d 645 (ND 1994) (concerning implied consent and use of refusal evidence)
- State v. Fields, 294 N.W.2d 404 (ND 1980) (silence may be treated as refusal; warnings advised to prevent confusion)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983) (refusal to submit blood test is not protected by the Fifth Amendment)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (Miranda warnings not to imply silence cannot be used later)
- Gardner v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2012 ND 223 (ND 2012) (failure to submit can be a refusal; silence or inaction suffices)
- State v. Miller, 146 N.W.2d 159 (ND 1966) (cases addressing blood tests and self-incrimination)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 858 N.W.2d 302 (ND 2015) (recognized implied-consent framework for testing)