Wampler v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2014 ND 24

On April 18, 2013, Jamestown police stopped Tammy Wampler for erratic driving; officer observed signs of intoxication and Wampler admitted drinking.
Wampler failed field sobriety tests, a portable screen indicated ≥ .08, and an Intoxilyzer breath test (within two hours) reported 0.159.
The officer completed the Department of Transportation’s Report and Notice form and wrote "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank but did not add the phrase "by weight."
The Department suspended Wampler’s driving privileges after the certified report; Wampler requested an administrative hearing and argued omission of "by weight" deprived the Department of authority.
An administrative hearing officer upheld the suspension; the district court reversed, finding the omission was a jurisdictional defect under N.D.C.C. § 39‑20‑03.1(4).
The Department appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court; Wampler did not appear in the appeal.

Issue	Wampler's Argument	DOT's Argument	Held
Whether omission of the phrase "by weight" on the officer’s certified written report defeats the Department’s statutory authority to suspend driving privileges	The omission is a basic and mandatory statutory requirement; without the phrase the report does not satisfy § 39‑20‑03.1(4) and suspension is invalid	The numeric test result (0.159), reference to Chapter 39‑20, and notation that a breath test was given sufficiently inform the driver and satisfy the statute; the specific phrase "by weight" is not required	Court held phrase not required; numeric result + context satisfied § 39‑20‑03.1(4), so suspension was authorized

Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 695 N.W.2d 212 (2005) (held that omission of the test result from the report deprived the Department of authority because drivers must be quickly and clearly informed of the officer’s basis)
Aamodt v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 682 N.W.2d 308 (2004) (statute must be followed for Department to have suspension authority; basic and mandatory provisions requirement)
Schwind v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 147 (1990) (interpretation of statutory requirements to avoid absurd results; guidance on which provisions are mandatory)
Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412 (1994) (failure to submit an Intoxilyzer test record can deprive Department of authority)
Pesanti v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 839 N.W.2d 851 (2013) (explains standard of review for administrative suspensions)