State v. Bohe, 917 N.W.2d 497

On Dec. 3, 2016, a National Guard checkpoint in Morton County led to Deputy Lloyd stopping Daniel Bohe for suspected DUI after a guard reported impairment.
Deputy Lloyd observed signs of intoxication, Bohe admitted drinking, failed several field sobriety tests, and a preliminary breath test exceeded the legal limit; Bohe was arrested.
Deputy Lloyd requested a blood test, Bohe consented, and a nurse drew blood within two hours of driving.
At the suppression hearing, the deputy was uncertain whether he read the full statutory implied consent advisory and testified he likely omitted the clause stating refusal is a crime punishable like DUI because of recent case law.
The district court found the deputy likely omitted that portion but admitted the blood-test results; the Supreme Court reversed, holding the test inadmissible under N.D.C.C. § 39‑20‑01(3)(b).

Issue	State's Argument	Bohe's Argument	Held
Whether the blood-test result is admissible when the officer did not recite the entire implied-consent advisory required by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a)	The officer properly omitted the criminal-penalty language in light of Birchfield v. North Dakota, so results remain admissible	Omission of any portion of the statutory advisory renders the chemical-test results inadmissible under § 39-20-01(3)(b)	Reversed: results inadmissible because the full statutory advisory was not given
Whether Birchfield v. North Dakota required omission of the criminal-penalty language and thus excuses noncompliance with the statutory advisory	Birchfield made reading the criminal-penalty language inaccurate as to warrantless blood tests, so omission is proper and does not trigger inadmissibility	Birchfield did not abrogate the statutory admissibility requirements; the Legislature’s required advisory must be given in full	Majority: Birchfield does not abrogate the statutory warning requirement; omission makes results inadmissible; Dissent: officer permissibly omitted penalty language to avoid giving an inaccurate advisory
Whether the court needed to reach Bohe’s alternative arguments (coerced consent / unlawful search)	N/A	Coerced consent and unlawful search claim	Court declined to address these claims as unnecessary to the holding

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (holding motorists may not be criminally punished for refusing a warrantless blood test)
State v. O’Connor, 877 N.W.2d 312 (N.D. 2016) (court required full statutory implied-consent warning for admissibility)
State v. Hawkins, 898 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Helm, 901 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 2017) (addressing legality of prosecuting refusal for warrantless urine/blood tests)
Schwind v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1990) (legislative intent behind driver-license suspension statutes and avoiding absurd results)