State v. Humann, 2011 ND 237

Engstrom was arrested for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated after a parked-vehicle encounter at ~5:00 a.m.
Officer observed bloodshot eyes, mush mouth, and slow speech; odor of alcohol was disputed by the record.
Engstrom admitted drinking and failed horizontal gaze nystagmus testing, then refused a blood test.
S-D5 breath test was administered after some discussion and Engstrom agreed to take it; he was subjected to chemical testing.
DOT revoked Engstrom’s driving privileges for four years; hearing officer upheld the revocation; district court affirmed the decision.
The issues concern reasonable suspicion to order him from the vehicle and probable cause to arrest, reviewed under ND Administrative Agencies Practice Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reasonable suspicion to order Engstrom from the vehicle?	Engstrom lacked corroboration and indicators of impairment.	Totality of circumstances supported suspicion due to officer experience, dispatch info, time, and signs of impairment.	Yes; reasonable suspicion existed.
Was there probable cause to arrest Engstrom?	Only bloodshot eyes and mush mouth plus admission to drinking; insufficient for arrest.	Cumulative factors—admission, HGN failure, timing, and observations—established probable cause.	Yes; probable cause existed.
Was the S-D5 result admissible given Engstrom was parked?	Implied consent limited to moving violations or accidents.	On-site testing admissible under totality of circumstances; not limited by position.	Admissible under the circumstances.

Richter v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 150 (2010) (standard for review of agency decisions; Fourth Amendment context)
Hawes v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2007 ND 177 (2007) (scope and sufficiency of agency findings; preponderance standard)
Abernathey v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 122 (2009) (factors signaling impairment can support suspicion and are weighed for reasonableness)