State v. Long, 950 N.W.2d 178

On Sept. 8, 2019, a trooper found Kimberly Long unconscious in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle; she declined a preliminary breath test.
Long was arrested, given an implied-consent advisory that described refusal as a crime and listed penalties, but the advisory did not tell her she had a right to refuse chemical testing.
Long refused the post-arrest chemical test and was charged with refusal to submit to chemical testing (class B misdemeanor).
Long moved to dismiss, arguing N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is ambiguous and that legislative history requires advising drivers of a right to refuse; the district court denied the motion.
Long entered a conditional guilty plea preserving appellate review; the North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the use of the term “consequences” in N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) makes the statute ambiguous or requires advising drivers of a right to refuse chemical testing	The statute is unambiguous: it requires advising only of the consequences of refusal, not advising of a separate “right” to refuse	Long: “consequences” is ambiguous and, by legislative intent, the advisory must include notice of a right to refuse	Court: “consequences” is plain and excludes “rights”; statute requires advising of consequences only, not a right to refuse
Whether the phrase “consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Dakota” renders the statute ambiguous or requires specifying particular constitutional provisions in the advisory	The phrase simply acknowledges the statutory advisory must conform to constitutional limits; it does not require listing specific constitutional provisions	Long: The phrase is unclear and ambiguous, making legislative history necessary to determine which constitutional rights must be included in the advisory	Court: Phrase unambiguously signals presumption of constitutional compliance and does not require inclusion of or reference to specific constitutional provisions

State v. Norton, 930 N.W.2d 190 (N.D. 2019) (standard of review for findings in preliminary criminal proceedings)
Schulke v. Panos, 940 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 2020) (statutory interpretation: plain language governs when unambiguous)
Denault v. State, 898 N.W.2d 452 (N.D. 2017) (if statute ambiguous, courts may consult legislative history)
State v. Comes, 936 N.W.2d 114 (N.D. 2019) (unambiguous statutory text controls)
Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (U.S. 2018) (courts determine whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution)
State v. Welch, 930 N.W.2d 615 (N.D. 2019) (expressio unius principle: mention of one thing implies exclusion of another)