State v. Baxter
2015 ND 107
| N.D. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 21, 2013 a Stark County deputy stopped Kyle Baxter for weaving, driving in the wrong lane, and nearly hitting a curb; officer smelled alcohol and Baxter performed poorly on field sobriety tests (HGN 6/6).
- Officer read the implied-consent advisory and requested an onsite breath screening (Intoximeter); Baxter refused.
- Baxter was arrested, advised again, asked for a chemical test at the station, and again refused.
- Baxter was charged under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(e) for refusing an onsite screening or chemical test and moved to suppress, arguing constitutional violations.
- The district court denied suppression; Baxter conditionally pleaded guilty and reserved the right to appeal the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requesting/administering an onsite screening test without a warrant or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8 | State: officer had reasonable suspicion to request onsite screening; statute permits reasonable-suspicion requests | Baxter: implied-consent criminalization of refusal to onsite screening violates Fourth Amendment | Court: No Fourth Amendment violation; reasonable suspicion suffices to request onsite screening; criminalization of refusal is constitutional |
| Whether the implied-consent statutory scheme violates the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine | State: scheme is a lawful statutory choice tied to driving privilege and public safety | Baxter: imposing criminal penalties for refusal imposes an unconstitutional condition on the right to refuse warrantless testing | Court: No violation; prior decisions (Birchfield, Beylund) uphold scheme; constitutional-choice framework valid |
| Whether criminalizing refusal to submit to onsite screening or chemical tests violates substantive due process | State: regulating drunk driving implicates compelling interest; statutes narrowly tailored | Baxter: refusal is a protected liberty interest under due process and McNeely suggests protections for testing | Court: No due process violation; drunk-driving regulation is compelling and statutes are narrowly drawn; pass rational/heightened scrutiny |
| Whether probable cause is required before requesting an onsite screening (PBT) | State: reasonable suspicion is sufficient; onsite screening is a minimally intrusive screening tool | Baxter: argued higher suspicion (probable cause) should be required | Court: Probable cause not required; statutes construed to require reasonable, articulable suspicion for onsite screening requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Beylund v. Levi, 859 N.W.2d 403 (N.D. 2015) (upholding implied-consent criminal-refusal provisions and applying reasonableness analysis)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 858 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 2015) (holding criminal refusal statutes do not violate Fourth Amendment)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (addressing warrant requirement and exigency in warrantless blood draws)
- Fossum v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 843 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 2014) (describing onsite screening as a tool to ensure probable cause exists for arrest)
- Asbridge v. North Dakota State Highway Comm’r, 291 N.W.2d 739 (N.D. 1980) (earlier discussion of onsite screening’s investigative role)
- State v. McGuigan, 965 A.2d 511 (Vt. 2008) (applying Terry balancing to preliminary breath tests; PBTs are minimally intrusive screening tools)