Sayler v. ND Dept. of Transportation

20070101 Kylan Dennis Sayler, Plaintiff and Appellant
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: Transportation Dept.
Appellant: Michael Ray Hoffman
Appellee: Andrew Moraghan , Att. General Office
Term: 09/2007   Argument: 09/11/2007
ND cite: 2007 ND 165
NW cite: 740 N.W.2d 94

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

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 Add Docket 20070101 RSS

Docket entries:
104/05/2007 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/04/2007
204/30/2007 RECORD ON APPEAL with separate entry 3 (administrative record; not rec'd-exhibit 7)
305/09/2007 Letter dated 5/8/07 from Mr. Hoffman stating there was not an Administrative Hearing Exhibit 7.
405/09/2007 Motion for enlargement of time to file Appellant's Brief
505/09/2007 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 05/21/2007
605/09/2007 DISK - Administrative Transcript dated August 3, 2006
905/21/2007 DISK of ATB (e-mailed)
1006/19/2007 APPELLEE BRIEF
1206/22/2007 Corrected TOA & pages 10, 11, & 12 for AEB
1306/22/2007 Affidavit of Service by Mail dated 6-22-07 of the corrected TOA & pages for AEB
1406/22/2007 DISK - aeb (e-mailed)
1509/11/2007 APPEARANCES: Michael R. Hoffman; Andrew Moraghan
1609/11/2007 ARGUED: Hoffman; Moraghan
1910/16/2007 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner
2010/16/2007 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
2110/17/2007 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties
2211/07/2007 MANDATE
2411/01/2017 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/18/2018