State v. Timm
2016 ND 241
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Geoffrey Timm was arrested for driving under the influence and voluntarily consented to a warrantless blood test at the scene.
- Timm moved to suppress the blood-test results; the district court denied the motion.
- Timm conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial.
- This Court originally summarily affirmed Timm’s conviction in State v. Timm, concluding implied-consent/refusal laws did not make his consent involuntary in light of then-existing precedent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded Timm’s case for reconsideration in light of Birchfield v. North Dakota.
- On remand, this Court vacated its prior affirmance insofar as inconsistent with Birchfield and remanded to the district court to allow Timm to withdraw his plea and for further proceedings under Birchfield.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to a warrantless blood test was voluntary despite North Dakota implied-consent/refusal scheme | State: consent was voluntary and suppression denial proper | Timm: consent involuntary because of coercive legal landscape and advisory errors (per Birchfield concerns) | Court remanded for proceedings under Birchfield; prior affirmance vacated to the extent inconsistent |
| Whether warrantless blood tests incident to DUI arrests are permissible under the Fourth Amendment | State relied on prior state precedent allowing testing or upholding convictions | Timm relied on Birchfield holding that warrantless blood tests are not permitted as searches incident to arrest | Court followed Birchfield: warrantless blood tests are not permitted; remand to determine voluntariness and permit plea withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court holding warrantless breath tests may be allowed incident to arrest but warrantless blood tests are not)
- State v. Timm, 881 N.W.2d 256 (N.D. 2016) (North Dakota Supreme Court’s original summary affirmance of Timm’s conviction; vacated insofar as inconsistent with Birchfield)
- State v. Birchfield, 858 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 2015) (state-court decision addressing implied-consent issues prior to U.S. Supreme Court ruling)
- Beylund v. Levi, 859 N.W.2d 403 (N.D. 2015) (administrative license-suspension context addressed alongside Birchfield issues)
- State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015) (related case consolidated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s review)