North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 39-20-06 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person whose operator's license or privilege has been suspended, revoked, or denied by the decision of the hearing officer under section 39-20-05 may appeal within seven days after the date of the hearing under section 39-20-05 as shown by the date of the hearing officer's decision, section 28-32-42 notwithstanding, by serving on the director and filing a notice of appeal and specifications of error in the district court in the county where the events occurred for which the demand for a test was made, or in the county in which the administrative hearing was held. The court shall set the matter for hearing, and the petitioner shall give twenty days' notice of the hearing to the director and to the hearing officer who rendered the decision. Neither the director nor the court may stay the decision pending decision on appeal. Within twenty days after receipt of the notice of appeal, the director or the hearing officer who rendered the decision shall file in the office of the clerk of court to which the appeal is taken a certified transcript of the testimony and all other proceedings. It is the record on which the appeal must be determined. No additional evidence may be heard. The court shall affirm the decision of the director or hearing officer unless it finds the evidence insufficient to warrant the conclusion reached by the director or hearing officer. The court may direct that the matter be returned to the director or hearing officer for rehearing and the presentation of additional evidence.

\n

39-20-07. Interpretation of chemical tests. Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any individual while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drugs, or a combination thereof, evidence of the amount of alcohol concentration or presence of other drugs, or a combination thereof, in the individual's blood, breath, or urine at the time of the act alleged as shown by a chemical analysis of the blood, breath, or urine is admissible. For the purpose of this section: 1. An individual having, at that time, an alcohol concentration of not more than five one-hundredths of one percent by weight is presumed not to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This presumption has no application to the administration of chapter 39-06.2. 2. Evidence that there was at that time more than five one-hundredths of one percent by weight alcohol concentration in an individual is relevant evidence, but it is not to be given prima facie effect in indicating whether the individual was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 3. An individual having an alcohol concentration of at least eight one-hundredths of one percent by weight or, with respect to an individual under twenty-one years of age, an alcohol concentration of at least two one-hundredths of one percent by weight at the time of the performance of a chemical test within two hours after driving or being in physical control of a vehicle is under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of driving or being in physical control of a vehicle. 4. Alcohol concentration is based upon grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of end expiratory breath or grams of alcohol per sixty-seven milliliters of urine. 5. The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the

\n

Page No. 9 test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee. The director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee is authorized to approve satisfactory devices and methods of chemical analysis and determine the qualifications of individuals to conduct such analysis, and shall issue a certificate to all qualified operators who exhibit the certificate upon demand of the individual requested to take the chemical test. 6. The director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee may appoint, train, certify, and supervise field inspectors of breath testing equipment and its operation, and the inspectors shall report the findings of any inspection to the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee for appropriate action. Upon approval of the methods or devices, or both, required to perform the tests and the individuals qualified to administer them, the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee shall prepare, certify, and electronically post a written record of the approval with the state crime laboratory division of the attorney general at the attorney general website, and shall include in the record: a. An annual register of the specific testing devices currently approved, including serial number, location, and the date and results of last inspection. b. An annual register of currently qualified and certified operators of the devices, stating the date of certification and its expiration. c. The operational checklist and forms prescribing the methods currently approved by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee in using the devices during the administration of the tests. d. The certificate of the director of the state crime laboratory designating the director's designees. e. The certified records electronically posted under this section may be supplemented when the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee determines it to be necessary, and any certified supplemental records have the same force and effect as the records that are supplemented. f. The state crime laboratory shall make the certified records required by this section available for download in a printable format on the attorney general website. 7. Copies of the state crime laboratory certified records referred to in subsections 5 and 6 that have been electronically posted with the state crime laboratory division of the attorney general at the attorney general website must be admitted as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the records. 8. A certified copy of the analytical report of a blood or urine analysis referred to in subsection 5 and which is issued by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee must be accepted as prima facie evidence of the results of a chemical analysis performed under this chapter. The certified copy satisfies the directives of subsection 5. 9. Superseded by N.D.R.Ev., Rule 707. 10. A law enforcement officer who has witnessed an individual who is medically qualified to draw the blood sample for testing may sign a verified statement that the law enforcement officer witnessed the individual draw the blood sample and the individual followed the approved methods of the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee. Further foundation is not required to establish that the blood sample was drawn according to the approved method of the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee.

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases, 1963–2020 · leading case: Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 2004 ND 54 (N.D. 2004).
Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 2004 ND 54 (N.D. 2004). · cites it 28× “[¶9] Dettler timely requested a hearing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-05. The hearing officer had jurisdiction under N.”
May v. Sprynczynatyk, 2005 ND 76 (N.D. 2005). · cites it 20× “The De *200 partment does not dispute that the transcript was filed a few days late.”
Sayler v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2007 ND 165 (N.D. 2007). · cites it 12× “, states, in relevant part (emphasis added): Within twenty days after receipt of the notice of appeal, the director or the hearing officer who rendered the decision shall file in the office of the clerk of court to which the appeal is taken a certified transcript of the…”
Dodds v. North Dakota State High. Comm'r, 354 N.W.2d 165 (N.D. 1984). · cites it 12× “” Dodds appealed the decision of the administrative hearing officer to the district court pursuant to Section 39-20-06, N.D. C.C., 2 designating as error the admission at *168 the hearing of the results of the chemical analysis “despite unrebutted expert testimony that the…”
Fossum v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2014 ND 47 (N.D. 2014). · cites it 8× “The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.”
Lubenow v. North Dakota State High. Comm'r, 438 N.W.2d 528 (N.D. 1989). · cites it 8× “Lubenow appealed this decision to district court pursuant to Section 39-20-06 of *531 the North Dakota Century Code.”
Schirado v. North Dakota State High. Comm'r, 382 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 1986). · cites it 12× “NDCC § 39-20-06. Fair administration of a test may be established in either of two ways: through the State Toxicologist's testimony or by a showing that the test was performed according to the State Toxicologist's Approved Method of administering the test.”
Bayles v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 872 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 2015). · cites it 23× “The Department further argued the twenty-day period to file a transcript under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-06 is not jurisdictional and a violation does not require automatic dismissal.”
Aamodt v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2004 ND 134 (N.D. 2004). · cites it 4× “The hearing officer had jurisdiction under N.”
Kiecker v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 23 (N.D. 2005). · cites it 4× “[¶ 6] Kiecker timely requested an administrative hearing, and the hearing officer had jurisdiction under N.”
Wibben v. North Dakota State High. Comm'r, 413 N.W.2d 329 (N.D. 1987). · cites it 4× “Upon review under NDCC § 39-20-06, the district court affirmed the hearing examiner's decision.”
Moser v. North Dakota State High. Comm'r, 369 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 1985). · cites it 4× “hearing officer," NDCC § 39-20-06, and the district court judgment affirming the Commissioner's hearing officer's decision to suspend Moser's driving license is, therefore, reversed.”
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.