State v. Marsette
2012 ND 22
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Baesler appeals a district court judgment affirming a DOT 180-day license suspension.
- The district court affirmed after Baesler supplemented the record in district court, though the Department had not transmitted the administrative record.
- Hearing officer suspended based on a record Baesler contends was incomplete, with the only material in the district court being email correspondence and a note there was no oral hearing.
- Statutory framework requires the Department to certify the record for judicial review and to establish authority to suspend under ch. 39‑20, N.D.C.C.
- The Department certified only that there was no oral record of hearing; no transcript or supporting record was transmitted to the district court.
- Court reverses, holding there is no evidence in the record to support the Department’s jurisdiction to suspend Baesler’s driving privileges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Department's suspension supported by a transmitted record showing authority? | Baesler contends no certified record exists. | Department argued the record existed and could be considered; remand could cure deficiencies. | No record certified to the court; lacks jurisdiction; reversal. |
| Did scheduling and attendance issues affect due process and authority to suspend? | Baesler asserts scheduling conflicts and absence tainted process. | Hearing officer acted within discretion; attendance not fatal to validity. | Record shows discretion exercised; no abuse; but insufficient record so reversal anyway. |
| Whether failure to transmit the administrative record mandates remand or reversal? | Record deficiency should be remedied by remand to recreate record. | Remand is possible, but the record here is beyond repair; certification lacking. | Remand not appropriate; reversal required due to lack of jurisdictional record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 2011 ND 55 (ND) (agency’s deference; defined review standard)
- Schaaf v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 145 (ND) (mandatory statutory provisions; authority to suspend)
- Sayler v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 2007 ND 165 (ND) (transcript filing timing; prejudice considerations)
- May v. Sprynczynatyk, 2005 ND 76 (ND) (remedies for late transcripts; prejudice standard)
- Masset v. Director, North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 211 (ND) (missing portions of record; remand to recreate record)