Sayler v. ND Dept. of Transportation

20070101

Kylan Dennis Sayler, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
North Dakota Department
of Transportation, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from:

District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Donald L. Jorgensen

Nature of Action:

Counsel:

Appellant:		Michael Ray Hoffman
Appellee:		Andrew Moraghan , Att. General Office

Term:

09/2007 Argument: 09/11/2007 09:00am

ND cite:

2007 ND 165

NW cite:

740 N.W.2d 94

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Issues:

Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Issue for Review No. 1: Should Sayler's suspension be reversed for the Department's failure to file the Transcript of Testimony of Administrative Hearing with the district court within twenty days of receipt of Sayler's notice of appeal in violation of NDCC 39-20-06?
Issue for Review No. 2: Was Sayler illegally seized and illegally placed under arrest?
Issue For Review Number 3: Should the judgment be vacated on grounds of substantial justice under Rule 61, NDRCivP?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A police dispatcher relayed information from a citizen to Bismarck Police Officer Scott Betz ("Officer Betz") that Kylan Dennis Sayler ("Sayler") was driving erratically and possibly was intoxicated. The dispatcher provided the officer with the license plate number and specific location of the vehicle. The citizen was reliable. Officer Betz located Sayler and spoke with him in a conversational and non-threatening manner. During the encounter, the officer made observations that gave him reasonable suspicion to detain Sayler. Should the Court affirm the Department's decision to suspend Sayler's driving privileges?
The Department's receipt of Sayler's Notice of Appeal and Specifications of Error to the district court was inexplicably delayed; the Department received Sayler's appeal request about two months after it was allegedly mailed. The Department is required to file the administrative transcript with the district court within 20 days of receipt of the notice of appeal. After the notice was received by the Department, the transcript was promptly filed. Should the Court affirm the district court's decision that Sayler was not prejudiced by the unexplained delay?
Finally, Sayler alleges a foundational exhibit was not admitted at the administrative level. Yet Sayler neither raised this argument at the administrative or district court level, nor included this issue in his specifications of error. Should the Court summarily reject Sayler's new argument?

Add Docket 20070101 RSS

Docket entries:

1	04/05/2007	NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/04/2007
2	04/30/2007	RECORD ON APPEAL with separate entry 3 (administrative record; not rec'd-exhibit 7)
3	05/09/2007	Letter dated 5/8/07 from Mr. Hoffman stating there was not an Administrative Hearing Exhibit 7.
4	05/09/2007	Motion for enlargement of time to file Appellant's Brief
5	05/09/2007	ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 05/21/2007
6	05/09/2007	DISK - Administrative Transcript dated August 3, 2006
7	05/21/2007	APPELLANT BRIEF
8	05/21/2007	APPELLANT APPENDIX
9	05/21/2007	DISK of ATB (e-mailed)
10	06/19/2007	APPELLEE BRIEF
11	06/19/2007	APPELLEE APPENDIX
12	06/22/2007	Corrected TOA & pages 10, 11, & 12 for AEB
13	06/22/2007	Affidavit of Service by Mail dated 6-22-07 of the corrected TOA & pages for AEB
14	06/22/2007	DISK - aeb (e-mailed)
15	09/11/2007	APPEARANCES: Michael R. Hoffman; Andrew Moraghan
16	09/11/2007	ARGUED: Hoffman; Moraghan
17	09/11/2007	ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
18	10/16/2007	DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
19	10/16/2007	UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner
20	10/16/2007	Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
21	10/17/2007	Judgment E-Mailed to Parties
22	11/07/2007	MANDATE
23	11/09/2007	RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/17/2013