State v. Gackle, 871 N.W.2d 589

McLean County deputy stopped Robert Gackle for speeding, observed signs of intoxication, obtained consent to search his vehicle, and found a crushed beer can.
Deputy administered field sobriety tests, arrested Gackle, read the implied-consent advisory at Turtle Lake Hospital, and obtained Gackle’s consent to a blood draw.
A nurse drew blood; the deputy sealed and hand-delivered the kit to the State Crime Laboratory. Forensic scientist tested the sample and reported a .21% BAC with an accompanying sworn affidavit.
Gackle moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the implied-consent advisory coerced his consent; the district court denied the motion and admitted the test results over objection that statutory foundation under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5) was lacking.
At trial the State presented live testimony from the nurse, deputy, and forensic scientist describing collection, chain-of-custody, and laboratory procedures; the jury convicted Gackle of DUI.
Gackle appealed, challenging (1) voluntariness of consent and (2) sufficiency of foundation/authentication for admitting the blood-test results.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reading the implied-consent advisory rendered Gackle’s consent involuntary (coerced)	Gackle: Advisory coerced him because he only consented to avoid being charged with refusal	State: Reading advisory is not per se coercive; no facts show actual coercion here	Court: Advisory alone is not coercive; no evidence of coercion — consent was voluntary
Whether State failed to meet foundation/authentication requirements for admitting blood-test results under § 39-20-07(5)	Gackle: State failed to show director or director’s designee approved methods/devices/individuals, so statutory prima-facie foundation lacking	State: Chose to rely on live witness testimony and normal evidentiary procedures to establish chain-of-custody and fair administration rather than statutory shortcut	Court: Admission proper — State provided detailed testimony showing proper collection, sealed custody, lab protocol, and fair administration; district court did not abuse discretion

State v. Nagel, 857 N.W.2d 374 (N.D. 2014) (reading implied-consent advisory is not per se coercive)
State v. Smith, 849 N.W.2d 599 (N.D. 2014) (no coercion where record lacks evidence beyond advisory)
Painte v. Director, Department of Transportation, 832 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 2013) (sworn statement of designee can satisfy § 39-20-07 foundation in administrative context)
Frank v. Director, Department of Transportation, 849 N.W.2d 248 (N.D. 2014) (administrative admission error where no proof a certifier was director’s designee)
State v. Jordheim, 508 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1993) (§ 39-20-07 is a statutory shortcut; general evidence rules may be used if statutory foundation absent)
State v. Asbridge, 555 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1996) (statute eases foundation burden but does not preclude normal evidentiary methods)
State v. Keller, 833 N.W.2d 486 (N.D. 2013) (fair administration is a preliminary admissibility question for the trial judge)