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.
10 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christiansen v. NDDOTgreen1 sentence2025N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04.1(1); see Christiansen, 2022 ND 27, ¶ 15 (“Before the Department can suspend a person’s driving privileges when he or she has requested an administrative hearing, the Department must receive the certified report from law enforcement, confirm law enforcement had reasonable grounds to arrest the person and confirm test results show that person’s alcohol concentration was over the legal limit within two hours of driving or being in control of a vehicle.”). 1 6 [¶16] The first condition in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04.1(1) that must be met for the Department to have authority to suspend | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sahgreen1 sentence2024See id. [¶15] We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Driver’s motion for a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
Koenig v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2014Dep’t of Transp. , 2005 ND 95, ¶¶ 15, 16 , 696 N.W.2d 534 . [¶34] I agree with the Department’s position that section 39-20-01 requires informing the driver of a violation of the law involving driving and the use of drugs or alcohol and that Fossum was adequately informed that his violation was “minor zero tolerance.” Under our precedent in Asbridge , this was enough to put a reasonable person on notice as to the cause of the detention. 2014Dep’t of Transp. , 2005 ND 95, ¶¶ 15, 16 , 696 N.W.2d 534 . [¶34] I agree with the Department’s position that section 39-20-01 requires informing the driver of a violation of the law involving driving and the use of drugs or alcohol and that Fossum was adequately informed that his violation was “minor zero tolerance.” Under our precedent in Asbridge , this was enough to put a reasonable person on notice as to the cause of the detention. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Messnergreen2 sentences1998“What may be reasonable in one locality may be unreasonable in another.” In Messner at 240 (emphasis ours), we emphasized an arrested driver’s right to an independent test “is actually an arrested motorist’s right to be free of police interference when obtaining another test by his own efforts and at his own expense.” [¶ 11] Generally, law officers are not required to transport the driver for the test, but “they need only allow an accused access to a telephone.” Id. 1998“What may be reasonable in one locality may be unreasonable in another.” In Messner at 240 (emphasis ours), we emphasized an arrested driver’s right to an independent test “is actually an arrested motorist’s right to be free of police interference when obtaining another test by his own efforts and at his own expense.” [¶ 11] Generally, law officers are not required to transport the driver for the test, but “they need only allow an accused access to a telephone.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Schwind v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences1994See also Schwind, supra at 151 ["The prerequisite for the exercise of the Director's jurisdiction is the certified written report and test records of either breath, blood, saliva, or urine."]. 1994See also Schwind, supra at 151 [“The prerequisite for the exercise of the Director’s jurisdiction is the certified written report and test records of either breath, blood, saliva, or urine.”]. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Landsiedel v. DIRECTOR DEPT. OF TRANSP.
neutral
2 sentences2012Department of Transportation, 2009 ND 196, ¶ 12 , 774 N.W.2d 645 (a hearing officer cannot unilaterally decide to conduct an administrative hearing by telephone under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-05, because the legislature intended for the hearing officer to “immediately deliver” the decision to the driver and the hearing officer must “immediately take possession of’ or “sign, date, and mark” a driver’s temporary operator’s permit, which requires an in-person hearing). [¶ 40] We are concerned about the hearing officer’s failure to follow the statutory provision. 2012Department of Transportation, 2009 ND 196, ¶ 12 , 774 N.W.2d 645 (a hearing officer cannot unilaterally decide to conduct an administrative hearing by telephone under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-05, because the legislature intended for the hearing officer to “immediately deliver” the decision to the driver and the hearing officer must “immediately take possession of’ or “sign, date, and mark” a driver’s temporary operator’s permit, which requires an in-person hearing). [¶ 40] We are concerned about the hearing officer’s failure to follow the statutory provision. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Meier v. North Dakota Department of Human Services
green
1 sentence2025Servs., 2012 ND 134, ¶ 10 , 818 N.W.2d 774 . [¶24] To the extent the Hansen case applies an earlier version, we conclude it still stands for the proposition that N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1’s continued use of the language, “probable cause to believe that the driver is in violation of section 39- 08-01,” requires an arrest before requesting a chemical test and that the section operates to withdraw a driver’s “legislative grace” or right to refuse a chemical 10 test provided under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Meier v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services
green
1 sentence2025Servs., 2012 ND 134, ¶ 10 , 818 N.W.2d 774 . [¶24] To the extent the Hansen case applies an earlier version, we conclude it still stands for the proposition that N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1’s continued use of the language, “probable cause to believe that the driver is in violation of section 39- 08-01,” requires an arrest before requesting a chemical test and that the section operates to withdraw a driver’s “legislative grace” or right to refuse a chemical 10 test provided under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences1993We held this section ambiguous, reviewed its legislative history, and concluded that, while it uses probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence, "a serious *154 constitutional question arises if we interpret Section 39-20-01.1 to not require an arrest." 444 N.W.2d at 332 . 1993We held this section ambiguous, reviewed its legislative history, and concluded that, while it uses probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence, “a serious constitutional question arises if we interpret Section 39-20-01.1 to not require an arrest.” 444 N.W.2d at 332 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1989Section 39-20-01.1 provides: “Notwithstanding section 39-20-01 or 39-20-04, when the driver of a vehicle is involved in an accident resulting in the death or serious bodily injury, as defined in section 12.1-01-04, of another person, and there is probable cause to believe that the driver is in violation of section 39-08-01, the driver may be compelled by a police officer to submit to a test or tests of the driver’s blood, breath, saliva, or urine to determine the alcohol concentration or the presence of other drugs or substances.” In State v. Anderson, 336 N.W.2d 634 (N.D.1983), we observed th | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.