State v. Pouliot, 945 N.W.2d 246

On Sept. 22, 2019, Pouliot was arrested for DUI; the arresting officer read a post-arrest implied consent advisory and Pouliot agreed to a breath test.
At the law enforcement center, a different deputy administered an Intoxilyzer 8000 test and did not repeat the advisory.
Pouliot moved to exclude the chemical test results, arguing N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(a) requires the officer who gives the advisory to also administer the test.
The district court denied the motion; Pouliot entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial.
The State relied on a 2019 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) that narrowed the exclusion remedy to “proof of the refusal” in administrative proceedings.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statutory exclusion Pouliot sought does not apply in this criminal, non-refusal case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 39-20-01(a) require the same officer to give the advisory and administer the chemical test?	Pouliot: yes, same officer required.	State: not necessary; statute doesn’t impose that requirement for admissibility.	Court: did not decide the substantive requirement; no need to decide here.
Is exclusion under § 39-20-01(3)(b) available to exclude test results in this criminal case?	Pouliot: exclusion applies for failure to follow § 39-20-01(a).	State: 2019 amendment limits exclusion to proof-of-refusal in administrative proceedings.	Court: exclusionary remedy does not apply—this is a criminal, non-refusal case.

State v. O'Connor, [citation="877 N.W.2d 312"] (N.D. 2016) (recognized statutory exclusion when officer fails to provide implied-consent advisory)
State v. Vigen, [citation="927 N.W.2d 430"] (N.D. 2019) (standard of review: defer to district court findings on suppression)
State v. Beilke, [citation="489 N.W.2d 589"] (N.D. 1992) (legislative amendments indicate changed statutory meaning; presume purposeful action)