Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sadekgreen2 sentences2020State v. Sadek, 552 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D. 1996). 2017State v. Sadek , 552 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D. 1996). | 4 | 4 |
Bickler v. North Dakota State Highway Commissionergreen2 sentences2000This Court has also clearly stated that this statutory right of an arrested person to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test is a “limited” right and must be balanced against “the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.” Bickler v. North Dakota State Highway Comm’r, 423 N.W.2d 146,147 (N.D.1988). *164 [¶ 10] Section 29-05-20, N.D.C.C., explicitly defines this right as a right that attaches only after arrest. 1996Section 29-05-20 requires that “any attorney at law entitled to practice in the courts of record of this state, at his request, may visit [an accused] person after his arrest.” The right to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test is a “limited” right, and the arrested person’s right to consult with counsel must be balanced against “the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.” Bickler v. North Dakota State Highway Com’r, 423 N.W.2d 146, 147 (N.D.1988); see City of Mandan v. Jewett, 517 N.W.2d 640 (N.D.1994). | 2 | 4 |
City of Mandan v. Jewettgreen1 sentence1996Section 29-05-20 requires that “any attorney at law entitled to practice in the courts of record of this state, at his request, may visit [an accused] person after his arrest.” The right to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test is a “limited” right, and the arrested person’s right to consult with counsel must be balanced against “the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.” Bickler v. North Dakota State Highway Com’r, 423 N.W.2d 146, 147 (N.D.1988); see City of Mandan v. Jewett, 517 N.W.2d 640 (N.D.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Mandan v. Leno
neutral
2 sentences2017However, “[t]his statutory right is a ‘limited’ right and ‘must be balanced against the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.’” Koehly v. Levi , 2016 ND 202, ¶ 12 , 886 N.W.2d 689 (quoting City of Mandan v. Leno , 2000 ND 184, ¶ 9 , 618 N.W.2d 161 ). 2017However, “[t]his statutory right is a ‘limited’ right and ‘must be balanced against the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.’” Koehly v. Levi , 2016 ND 202, ¶ 12 , 886 N.W.2d 689 (quoting City of Mandan v. Leno , 2000 ND 184, ¶ 9 , 618 N.W.2d 161 ). | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Berger
green
2 sentences2017“An arrested person who asks to speak with an attorney before taking a chemical test must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not materially interfere with the test administration.” State v. Berger , 2001 ND 44, ¶ 17 , 623 N.W.2d 25 (citations omitted). [¶7] In Baillie v. Moore , this Court adopted a test for determining whether an arrestee has invoked the right to talk to an attorney before submitting to a chemical test, thereby triggering the officer’s duty to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney: We refuse to indulge in a case-by-case search for mag 2017“An arrested person who asks to speak with an attorney before taking a chemical test must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not materially interfere with the test administration.” State v. Berger , 2001 ND 44, ¶ 17 , 623 N.W.2d 25 (citations omitted). [¶7] In Baillie v. Moore , this Court adopted a test for determining whether an arrestee has invoked the right to talk to an attorney before submitting to a chemical test, thereby triggering the officer’s duty to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney: We refuse to indulge in a case-by-case search for mag | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State, Department of Public Safety v. Kneisl
green
2 sentences1994Farrell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 682 P.2d 1128 (Alaska App.1984); State Dept. of Public Safety v. Kneisl, 312 Minn. 281 , 251 N.W.2d 645 (1977).” Bickler at 147 . 1994Farrell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 682 P.2d 1128 (Alaska App.1984); State Dept. of Public Safety v. Kneisl, 312 Minn. 281 , 251 N.W.2d 645 (1977).” Bickler at 147 . | 2 | 1988–1994 |
Farrell v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
2 sentences1994Farrell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 682 P.2d 1128 (Alaska App.1984); State Dept. of Public Safety v. Kneisl, 312 Minn. 281 , 251 N.W.2d 645 (1977).” Bickler at 147 . 1988Farrell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 682 P.2d 1128 (Alaska App.1984); State Dept. of Public Safety v. Kneisl, 312 Minn. 281 , 251 N.W.2d 645 (1977). | 2 | 1988–1994 |
Koehly v. Levi
green
2 sentences2017However, “[t]his statutory right is a ‘limited’ right and ‘must be balanced against the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.’” Koehly v. Levi , 2016 ND 202, ¶ 12 , 886 N.W.2d 689 (quoting City of Mandan v. Leno , 2000 ND 184, ¶ 9 , 618 N.W.2d 161 ). 2017However, “[t]his statutory right is a ‘limited’ right and ‘must be balanced against the need for an accurate and timely chemical test.’” Koehly v. Levi , 2016 ND 202, ¶ 12 , 886 N.W.2d 689 (quoting City of Mandan v. Leno , 2000 ND 184, ¶ 9 , 618 N.W.2d 161 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
City of Dickinson v. Schank
neutral
2 sentences2017State v. Sadek, 552 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D. 1996). *65 Schank, 2017 ND 81, ¶ 7 , 892 N.W.2d 593 (quoting State v. Berger, 2001 ND 44, ¶ 17 , 623 N.W.2d 25 ). 2017State v. Sadek, 552 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D. 1996). *65 Schank, 2017 ND 81, ¶ 7 , 892 N.W.2d 593 (quoting State v. Berger, 2001 ND 44, ¶ 17 , 623 N.W.2d 25 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.