State v. Jones
2012 ND 213
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Gardner was arrested Jan. 21, 2012 for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence in Stark County after a van lost a wheel and veered through a farmyard.
- Deputies detected alcohol on Gardner, and he was repeatedly asked to submit to chemical tests; he initially refused the HGN screening and later expressed willingness to take a blood test.
- Gardner was transported to jail; on the way he threatened officers, and at the jail he refused to exit the car and initially refused cooperation with testing, constituting an effective refusal.
- Gardner timely requested an administrative hearing; the hearing officer found reasonable grounds to believe he was in actual physical control, that Gardner was arrested, and that Gardner effectively refused the blood test, resulting in a one-year license suspension.
- The issue on appeal is whether the failure to reiterate the consequences of refusal after arrest or the lack of explicit implied-consent advisory reading invalidates the refusal; the court held the issue was excluded from the hearing under § 39-20-05(3) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to inform consequences of refusal affects refusal validity | Gardner argues failure to inform voids refusal | Department contends the issue is not within hearing scope per § 39-20-05(3) | Not considered; exclusion upheld |
| Whether Gardner actually refused testing | Gardner did not refuse, only hesitated | Gardner's conduct and threats show refusal despite verbal acquiescence | Evidence supports refusal finding |
| Scope of the administrative hearing under § 39-20-05(3) | Reading consequences was within scope | Statute excludes that issue from consideration | Properly excluded; hearing acted within statutory limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lange v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 790 N.W.2d 28 (ND 2010) (standard of review for agency findings; deference to reasoned conclusions)
- Olson v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 523 N.W.2d 258 (ND 1994) (minor-parents implied-consent directive not applicable to scope of hearing)
- Agnew v. Hjelle, 216 N.W.2d 291 (ND 1974) (statutory directive and scope of administrative hearing)
- Throlson v. Backes, 466 N.W.2d 124 (ND 1991) (valid request for testing precedes a refusal determination)
- Kuntz v. State Highway Comm’r, 405 N.W.2d 285 (ND 1987) (consultation rights doctrine distinguished from implied-consent issue)
- Mayo v. Moore, 527 N.W.2d 257 (ND 1995) (refusal can be shown by conduct, not only explicit statements)
- Jorgenson v. Dep’t of Transp., 498 N.W.2d 167 (ND 1993) (refusal framework and weighing of evidence)
- Hammeren v. N.D. State Highway Comm’r, 315 N.W.2d 679 (ND 1982) (factual determination of testing refusal)
- Abernathey v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 768 N.W.2d 485 (ND 2009) (appellate deference to agency findings)