Sturn v. Director, N.D. Dept of Transportation

20080199 Kevin John Sturn, Petitioner and Appellee
v.
Director, North Dakota
Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Morton County
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
Nature of Action: Transportation Dept.
Counsel:
Appellant: Michael Trent Pitcher , Att. General Office
Appellee: Thomas M. Tuntland
Term: 12/2008   Argument: 12/22/2008  10:45am
ND cite: 2009 ND 39
NW cite: 763 N.W.2d 515

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
An officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motorist is violating the law in order to legally stop a vehicle. Trooper Bohn saw Sturn's vehicle approaching him rather quickly. Believing Sturn was speeding, the trooper activated his radar unit and clocked Sturn's vehicle at 36 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. Sturn objected to the radar reading on foundational grounds. The hearing officer overruled the objection. Was there sufficient grounds for the stop?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Could a reasoning mind conclude that an officer had sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop based solely on the officer's testimony that he saw a speed reading in excess of the posted speed limit on a radar device without some proof that the officer knew how to run the device, that the officer was actually running the device correctly or that the device appeared to be functioning properly?

Add Docket 20080199 RSS Add Docket 20080199 RSS

Docket entries:
108/14/2008 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/13/2008
209/11/2008 RECORD ON APPEAL & Transcript of Testimony of Administrative Hearing
309/18/2008 DISK of Transcript of Administrative Hearing on 4-8-08 (e-mailed)
409/22/2008 APPELLANT BRIEF
509/22/2008 APPELLANT APPENDIX
609/22/2008 Affidavit of Service by Mail of ATB
709/22/2008 DISK - atb (e-mailed)
810/23/2008 APPELLEE BRIEF
910/23/2008 DISK - AEB
1012/01/2008 MOTION FOR Continuance of argument by Appellant's counsel
1112/02/2008 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (oral argument has been continued to December 22 at 1:00 p.m.). Granted
1212/22/2008 APPEARANCES: Michael T. Pitchell, Asst. Attorney General; Thomas M. Tuntland
1312/22/2008 ARGUED: Pitcher; Tuntland
1412/22/2008 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1504/02/2009 DISPOSITION: REVERSED
1604/02/2009 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
1704/02/2009 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellant
1804/03/2009 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties
1904/28/2009 MANDATE
2005/07/2009 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/01/2014