Vanlishout v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
799 N.W.2d 397
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Vanlishout was arrested for actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated after being found in the backseat of a car stuck in a ditch outside Mandan in May 2010.
- The car, registered to Vanlishout, remained running when approached by a deputy; Vanlishout provided license, registration, and insurance and admitted drinking.
- Sobriety tests were administered; six intoxication clues appeared on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test; breath test showed BAC .146, and a blood test taken about an hour later showed .17.
- A friend testified he drove the car into the ditch and that Vanlishout slept in the backseat; the friend attempted to awaken him and later left to fetch a tow pickup.
- The deputy saw no footprints around the vehicle; he testified it would have been difficult to drive the car from the backseat.
- The hearing officer found reasonable grounds to believe a traffic offense occurred and that Vanlishout was in actual physical control of the car while intoxicated; the DOT suspended his license for 365 days and the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable grounds to find actual physical control? | Vanlishout: no reasonable grounds to conclude physical control. | DOT: grounds existed given running vehicle, backseat presence, and potential to influence driving. | Yes; sufficient grounds supported actual physical control. |
| Is intent to drive required for actual physical control? | Vanlishout asserts no intent to drive negates control. | DOT: intent is not an element of actual physical control. | Intent not required; presence and potential to drive suffice. |
| Does being in the backseat defeat actual physical control? | Vanlishout contends backseat position prevents control. | Broader interpretation allows control despite backseat location. | Backseat position does not preclude actual physical control where vehicle could be operated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawes v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 741 N.W.2d 202 (2007 ND) (essential elements include actual physical control and intoxication)
- City of Fargo v. Novotny, 562 N.W.2d 95 (1997 ND) (intent to operate not required for actual physical control)
- Salvaggio v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 477 N.W.2d 195 (1991 ND) (temporary impediments do not negate control)
- Rist v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 665 N.W.2d 45 (2003 ND) (focus on ability to manipulate vehicle controls, not instantaneous operation)
- State v. Ghylin, 250 N.W.2d 252 (1977 ND) (illustrative preclusions under actual physical control framework)
- City of Fargo v. Theusch, 462 N.W.2d 162 (1990 ND) (viability of control in a vehicle temporarily disabled)