State v. Montgomery, 905 N.W.2d 754

On Oct. 1, 2016, Sgt. Stoltz stopped Shawn Montgomery for speeding, observed signs of intoxication, gave field tests and an onsite breath screening that indicated impairment, and arrested Montgomery.
Stoltz read the statutory implied-consent advisory, administered an onsite test, and after arrest read Miranda and the advisory again; the criminal-penalties portion was read the second time.
Montgomery asked for a blood test before the officer finished the advisory and later testified he felt "intimidated" and would have taken a breath test instead.
Montgomery moved to suppress the blood-test results, claiming his consent was involuntary because it was compelled; the district court held a suppression hearing, reviewed testimony and an audio recording, and denied the motion, finding consent voluntary.
Montgomery entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of suppression to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding competent evidence supported the district court’s voluntariness finding and that the court correctly applied the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent to a warrantless blood draw was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment	State: consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; district court credibility findings should be upheld	Montgomery: consent was involuntary because he was intimidated, asked for blood before advisory completed, and was effectively compelled	Court held consent was voluntary; affirmed denial of suppression
Whether failure to explain differences in penalties between refusing breath and blood tests invalidates consent	State: no statutory or constitutional requirement to give additional advisory beyond statute	Montgomery: officer should have warned that refusing blood (but not breath) carries criminal penalties	Court rejected creation of new advisory duties; no presumption of invalidity for failure to give such warnings

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (recognizes blood tests as Fourth Amendment searches and limits implied-consent criminal penalties)
State v. Hawkins, 898 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 2017) (suppression upheld where totality showed involuntary consent)
State v. Torkelsen, 752 N.W.2d 640 (N.D. 2008) (consent exception to warrant requirement; State bears burden to prove voluntariness)
State v. Bjornson, 531 N.W.2d 315 (N.D. 1995) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (no blanket requirement that officers inform of right to refuse consent searches)