Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"Section 39-20-14(1), N.D.C.C., establishes that drivers are deemed to have provided consent to submit to a screening test when the driver commits a tr...affic offense or is involved in an accident and, in conjunction with the traffic violation or accident, law enforcement formulates an opinion the driver’s body contains alcohol; It does not require the screening test to be conducted at the location of the stop."
DUI and DWI
City of West Fargo v. Ekstrom
Feb 12, 2020
OUTCOME: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"A mistrial that is declared with the defendant’s consent, such as when the defendant moves for a mistrial without having been goaded into doing so by ...misconduct attributable to the prosecutor, generally does not bar a later prosecution.
A fact used to enhance a criminal sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the crime committed must be decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Any fact leading to the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence must also be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
DUI and DWI
State v. Blaskowski
Jul 11, 2019
OUTCOME: Conviction Reversed
Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"A chemical breath test was not “fairly administered” under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07 because evidence failed to establish compliance with the approved metho...d for conducting the test."
DUI and DWI
City of West Fargo v. Williams
Jun 27, 2019
OUTCOME: Reversed/Subsequently Acquitted
Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"The right to an additional independent test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 only arises when the driver submits to the chemical test requested by law enforc...ement.
An on-site screening test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(3) is not the same as a chemical test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(1) and therefore a person is not an “individual tested” under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 by virtue of his submission to on-site screening tests. Likewise, a person is not statutorily entitled to an independent test of his choosing because he submitted to on-site screening tests since a test in addition to “any administered” under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 refers to any administered chemical tests."
Criminal defense
State v. Gardner
May 16, 2019
OUTCOME: Reversed in favor of Gardner
Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"A claimant neither needs to be the addressee nor needs to live at the address on a package to claim a search and seizure right to the package. A claim...ant only needs to show a possessory interest in the package."
Criminal defense
State v. Vetter
May 16, 2019
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"A traffic stop is not expanded by incidental questions the officer asks without reasonable suspicion so long as they occur prior to the completion of ...the stop and the officer does not deliberately delay completion of the stop."
DUI and DWI
Ebach v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
Mar 13, 2019
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Summary of North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion:
"At a hearing under N.D.C.C. 39-20-05, the regularly kept records of the director and state crime laboratory may be introduced; once introduced, those ...records establish prima facie their contents without further foundation.
Once a chemical breath test record is admitted into evidence, establishing prima facie its contents, a party may rebut the presumption of fair administration by establishing a deviation from approved procedures or a lack of fair administration despite compliance with approved procedures.
Unless the defendant produces enough evidence to rebut the foundation of fair administration, evidence discrediting chemical breath test results will affect the weight given the test results not their admissibility.
Steps not expressly included in the approved method published by the State Toxicologist are not foundational requirements for the admission of chemical breath test records."
DUI and DWI
State v. Ngale
Jul 11, 2018
OUTCOME: Affirmed
North Dakota Supreme Court Holding Summary:
"A reserve deputy, who provides services on a non-salaried basis and has full arrest authority, is not required to be licensed to perform peace officer la...w enforcement duties."
Criminal defense
State of ND v. Terrill
Mar 22, 2018
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Michael Ray Terrill appealed from a district court judgment entered after it
accepted Terrill’s conditional plea.
In January 2017, a search warrant was granted for a hotel room, two specific
indiv...iduals, and “any other persons determined to reside” at the location. Once officers knocked and announced their presence, they heard the room being ransacked. Upon entering the hotel room, officers found two individuals who appeared to be flushing narcotics down the toilet and one individual, later identified as Terrill, hiding behind a bed. The room was strewn with drug paraphernalia in plain sight. An officer ordered Terrill to come out from behind the bed, placed him in handcuffs, and discovered a bag of what appeared to be methamphetamine in his pocket during a search of Terrill’s person.
Terrill was arrested and subsequently charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Terrill moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his arrest. The district court denied the motion because Terrill was in at least constructive possession of drug paraphernalia On appeal, Terrill argued the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress.
DUI and DWI
Martinson v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
Nov 16, 2017
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Phillip Martinson appealed a district court judgment affirming anagency decision to suspend his driver's license for 180 days.
In May 2016, Sergeant Ruelle responded to an anonymous report of a poss...ible intoxicated driver. The only information provided in the report was the license plate number and identifying vehicle information. Ruelle responded to the call and arrived at the registered owner's residence approximately ten minutes after the report. A second officer arrived at the residence at the same time.
Sergeant Ruelle observed a person, later identified as Martinson, in the vehicle that matched the report's description. Ruelle approached and talked with Martinson about the anonymous report. Upon observation of signs of impairment, Ruelle administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Based on the anonymous report, observation of Martinson in the vehicle with keys on his person, and Martinson's various signs of impairment, Sergeant Ruelle arrested him for actual physical control. Martinson consented to a chemical blood test. The test indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.189 percent.
A Report and Notice was issued, notifying Martinson of the Department's intent to suspend his driving privileges. Martinson requested an administrative hearing. The hearing officer issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision suspending Martinson's driving privileges. Martinson requested judicial review of the decision. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision to suspend Martinson's license. Martinson appealed.
On appeal, Martinson argued the administrative agency erred in finding there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and erred in finding there was probable cause to arrest him for actual physical control. Martinson argues the officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe he was in actual physical control of the vehicle. Martinson also argued that he cannot be found guilty of actual physical control because the officer only observed him on Martinson's personal driveway, which Martinson argued is private property not open to the public for vehicular use.
