Intoxi-lyzer test in North Dakota

2013Regardless of when the officer said he began to ascertain the time, the evidence supports the hearing officer’s finding that the twenty-minute waiting period had been observed by the time the officer administered the Intoxi-lyzer test. 2004 ND 59, ¶¶ 16-17 , 676 N.W.2d 807 . [¶ 15] At the administrative hearing, Mees argued the Intoxilyzer test was not fairly administered.

2013Regardless of when the officer said he began to ascertain the time, the evidence supports the hearing officer’s finding that the twenty-minute waiting period had been observed by the time the officer administered the Intoxi-lyzer test. 2004 ND 59, ¶¶ 16-17 , 676 N.W.2d 807 . [¶ 15] At the administrative hearing, Mees argued the Intoxilyzer test was not fairly administered.

2013There was no evidence presented to contradict the hearing officer’s finding that “the tobacco chew was removed at about 12:07 a.m.” As this Court has said, “a fact-finder may draw reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented. ...” Buchholtz, 2008 ND 53 , ¶ 14, 746 N.W.2d 181 .

2013There was no evidence presented to contradict the hearing officer’s finding that “the tobacco chew was removed at about 12:07 a.m.” As this Court has said, “a fact-finder may draw reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented. ...” Buchholtz, 2008 ND 53 , ¶ 14, 746 N.W.2d 181 .

2008A driver has a limited statutory- right to counsel under the implied consent statute: “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 .

2008A driver has a limited statutory- right to counsel under the implied consent statute: “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 .

2008R.P.’s parents were already in the room and there was a significant window of time remaining after R.P. completed the Intoxi-lyzer test. [¶ 24] We now hold coupled with our decision in Kuntz v. State Highway Com’r., 405 N.W.2d 285 (N.D.1987), that the right to counsel provision of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, embodied in N.D.C.C. § 27-20-26, provides juveniles a limited right to counsel before deciding whether to consent to chemical testing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.

2008R.P.’s parents were already in the room and there was a significant window of time remaining after R.P. completed the Intoxi-lyzer test. [¶ 24] We now hold coupled with our decision in Kuntz v. State Highway Com’r., 405 N.W.2d 285 (N.D.1987), that the right to counsel provision of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, embodied in N.D.C.C. § 27-20-26, provides juveniles a limited right to counsel before deciding whether to consent to chemical testing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.

2002Id. [¶ 11] In this case, the hearing officer’s written decision states, in part: Prior to Intoxilyzer testing, Trooper Wahlen asked Mr. Knoll if he had anything in his mouth.

2002Id. [¶ 11] In this case, the hearing officer’s written decision states, in part: Prior to Intoxilyzer testing, Trooper Wahlen asked Mr. Knoll if he had anything in his mouth.

1989Instead, the trial court found that Falk had not drunk any intoxicating liquor after the accident and used the results as relevant circumstantial evidence of a violation of Section 39-08-01(l)(b), N.D.C.C., which is permissible under Allery, supra, and Preston, supra. We conclude that the results of the Intoxi-lyzer test were properly admitted for that purpose.

1989Instead, the trial court found that Falk had not drunk any intoxicating liquor after the accident and used the results as relevant circumstantial evidence of a violation of Section 39-08-01(l)(b), N.D.C.C., which is permissible under Allery, supra, and Preston, supra. We conclude that the results of the Intoxi-lyzer test were properly admitted for that purpose.

1987Justice Yetka, in his dissenting opinion in Nyflot v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 369 N.W.2d 512 (Minn.1985), cogently urges that the right to consult an attorney before making such a decision is basic and fundamental: “Most persons are confused about the many laws that exist.

1986Unlike Schirado v. North Dakota State Highway Com’r, 382 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. *860 1986) [failure to follow State Toxicologist’s Approved Method for administering Intoxi-lyzer test after printing malfunction] and Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Com’r, 369 N.W.2d 650 (N.D.1985) [failure to start Breathalyzer test at zero] which involved deviation of the procedure employed concerning the actual taking of the test that potentially affected the substantive test results and thus the fair administration of the test pursuant to subsection 5, this case involves the alleged deviation of procedures empl

1986Unlike Schirado v. North Dakota State Highway Com’r, 382 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. *860 1986) [failure to follow State Toxicologist’s Approved Method for administering Intoxi-lyzer test after printing malfunction] and Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Com’r, 369 N.W.2d 650 (N.D.1985) [failure to start Breathalyzer test at zero] which involved deviation of the procedure employed concerning the actual taking of the test that potentially affected the substantive test results and thus the fair administration of the test pursuant to subsection 5, this case involves the alleged deviation of procedures empl