969 N.W.2d 159
N.D.2022Background
- In Sept. 2020 officers encountered Charles Mayland sleeping/parked in a bar parking lot; he was awake when contacted.
- Officer read a preliminary screening advisory; Mayland submitted to a PBT that exceeded the legal limit.
- Officer told Mayland he could not leave; the officer then read the implied-consent advisory and Mayland consented to an Intoxilyzer test, which also exceeded the legal limit.
- Mayland moved to suppress the Intoxilyzer result, arguing the implied-consent advisory was read before he was placed under arrest in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(2).
- District court found Mayland was not under arrest before the advisory, but in any event held the 2019 amendment to § 39-20-01(3)(b) limits the statutory exclusionary remedy to administrative proceedings involving a refusal to test.
- Mayland entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the suppression issue and appealed; he also asked this Court to consider a Fourth Amendment suppression claim not raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(2) (reading implied-consent advisory before arrest) requires suppression of chemical-test results under § 39-20-01(3)(b) | Officer had arrested Mayland (so no violation); alternatively, even if violated, § 39-20-01(3)(b) exclusion applies only to administrative proceedings and proof of refusal | Advisory read before arrest violated statute and the statutory remedy requires exclusion of test evidence | Affirmed: § 39-20-01(3)(b) exclusion is limited to administrative proceedings concerning a driver's refusal to submit to testing; Mayland submitted to testing in a criminal case, so statutory exclusion does not apply. |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of the Intoxilyzer result (issue not raised in district court) | Issue is unpreserved and should not be considered on appeal | Mayland seeks review arguing no arrest => no search incident to arrest => suppression required | Declined to consider the Fourth Amendment claim because it was not raised in the district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pouliot, 945 N.W.2d 246 (N.D. 2020) (held 2019 amendment narrows § 39-20-01(3)(b) exclusion to administrative proceedings for refusals)
- City of Grand Forks v. Barendt, 920 N.W.2d 735 (N.D. 2018) (interpreting plain-language arrest timing under related statutory scheme)
- State v. Beilke, 489 N.W.2d 589 (N.D. 1992) (legislative amendment indicates changed statutory meaning)
- State v. Whitman, 838 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 2013) (standards for appellate consideration of issues of public importance or recurrence)
- Bearce v. Yellowstone Energy Dev., 963 N.W.2d 299 (N.D. 2021) (rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
- State v. Kensmoe, 636 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 2001) (procedural rule on preservation of issues for appeal)