1. If an operator's license is suspended or revoked under section 39-06-32 or 39-06.1-10 or chapter 39-16 or 39-16.1, the director shall give notice of intention to suspend to the licensee by mailing the notice to the licensee at the address of record in the department under section 39-06-20. Actual notice of the opportunity for a hearing under this section must be deemed to have occurred seventy-two hours after the notice is mailed by regular mail. The licensee has ten days after the date of mailing of the notice to request, in writing or by other means authorized by the director, a hearing on the intended suspension or revocation.
2. Any hearing conducted under this section and any appeal from the decision of the hearing must be conducted under chapter 28-32, except the hearing must be heard within sixty days of the receipt of the request for hearing and in the county of the licensee's residence, unless the parties agree to a different time and place for the hearing. A hearing under this section may be conducted by telephone, television, virtual online interface, or other electronic means with the consent of the licensee. At the hearing, the regularly kept records of the director may be introduced and are prima facie evidence of their content without further foundation.
3. The mailing of the decision and the resulting order by regular mail to the address recorded in the files of the director under section 39-06-20 is sufficient notice. If a suspension is ordered, a re-examination of the licensee may be required.
4. If a suspension is ordered under subsection 2 of section 39-06-32, the notice must include a specific description of the conditions which led to the conclusion that the licensee is incompetent to drive a motor vehicle. If during the suspension those conditions dissipate, the licensee may request another hearing on the issue of competence to drive a motor vehicle. The hearing must be held in the manner required under subsections 2 and 3 for the original suspension.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1972–2020 · leading case:
State v. Tininenko, 371 N.W.2d 762 (N.D. 1985).
State v. Tininenko, 371 N.W.2d 762 (N.D. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Section 39-06-43 does not explicitly require notice of the extended or "amended" order of suspension, but N.D. C.C. § 39-06-33 does require notice of an initial order of suspension by ordinary mail.”
State v. Sinner, 207 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 1973).
· cites it 6× “of any person without hearing and without receiving a record of conviction of such person of crime whenever the Department has reason to believe that such person.”
State v. Mehlhoff, 318 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 1982).
· cites it 6× “Johnson is further distinguishable from the instant case due to the existence here of Section 39-06-33, N.D.C.C., and the absence of a similar provision available to the licensee when the driver’s license of the defendant in Johnson was suspended.”
Schwind v. Dir., North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See section 39-05-27, NDCC [Director may suspend license upon notice of conviction, suspension or revocation in another state]; section 39-06-33, NDCC [Director may suspend license upon notice and opportunity for hearing for entries against driving record].”
State v. Egan, 1999 ND 59 (N.D. 1999).
· cites it 4× “[3] Egan requested the following instruction: A person's good faith belief that his conduct is not criminal is an affirmative defense if he acted in reasonable reliance upon a statement of the law contained in [a statute or other enactment] [a judicial decision, opinion, order,…”
Kouba v. State, 2004 ND 186 (N.D. 2004).
· cites it 2× “2-02(3) provide that neither the state nor a state employee may be held liable for a claim resulting from a decision “to grant, to grant with conditions, to refuse to grant, or to revoke any license.”
Christianson v. NDDOT, 2020 ND 76 (N.D. 2020).
· cites it 2× “[¶9] Section 39-06-33(2), N.D.C.C., states that, at a hearing regarding the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license, “the regularly kept records of the director may be introduced and are prima facie evidence of their content without further foundation.”
Cox v. Hjelle, 207 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 1973).
· cites it 8× “When he was notified of the suspension of his driving privileges, the petitioner requested a hearing as provided for in Section 39-06-33, North Dakota Century Code.”
State v. Harm, 200 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1972).
· cites it 4× “Harm did not request the hearing allowed him under the provisions of Section 39-06-33, N.D.C.C., which provided: "Upon suspending the license of any person as authorized in section 39-06-32, the commissioner shall immediately notify the licensee in writing and upon his request…”
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994).
· cites it 2× “” DOT argues that the copies of the Minnesota police records were self-authenticating pursuant to Section 39-06-33(2), N.D.C.C., which provides in pertinent part: “Any hearing conducted under this section and any appeal from the decision of the hearing must be conducted under…”
Andre v. North Dakota State High. Comm'r, 295 N.W.2d 128 (N.D. 1980).
“The hearing officer, acting as the Commissioner’s authorized agent [§ 39-06-33, N.D.C.C.], determined the record was adequate to require the Department to place three points on Andre’s record, and ordered suspension of the license.”
Keller v. Paris, 207 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 1973).
· cites it 10× “Kennedy to hold hearings under Section 39-06-33, only when the suspension order to be reviewed is one issued pursuant to Section 39-06-32.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-33(1) — 2 cases
State v. Egan, 1999 ND 59 (N.D. 1999).
“[3] Egan requested the following instruction: A person's good faith belief that his conduct is not criminal is an affirmative defense if he acted in reasonable reliance upon a statement of the law contained in [a statute or other enactment] [a judicial decision, opinion, order,…”
Kouba v. State, 2004 ND 186 (N.D. 2004).
“2-02(3) provide that neither the state nor a state employee may be held liable for a claim resulting from a decision “to grant, to grant with conditions, to refuse to grant, or to revoke any license.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-33(2) — 4 cases
Christianson v. NDDOT, 2020 ND 76 (N.D. 2020).
“[¶9] Section 39-06-33(2), N.D.C.C., states that, at a hearing regarding the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license, “the regularly kept records of the director may be introduced and are prima facie evidence of their content without further foundation.”
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994).
“” DOT argues that the copies of the Minnesota police records were self-authenticating pursuant to Section 39-06-33(2), N.D.C.C., which provides in pertinent part: “Any hearing conducted under this section and any appeal from the decision of the hearing must be conducted under…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.