Jundt v. NDDOT
- Corey Lee Jundt, Appellant
North Dakota Department of Transportation, Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : TRANSPORTATION DEPT.
- Appeal From
Case No. 2020-CV-00587
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
James S. Hill
Parties' Statement of Issues
ISSUE 1: The Department did not meet the basic and mandatory provisions of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) when the Report and Notice failed to show compliance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a), and therefore did not show that Jundt was tested under Chapter 39, without which the Department had no authority to suspend Jundt’s driving privileges.
ISSUE 2: N.D.C.C. § 39-20-05(2) sets for the scope of issues to be determined at the hearing, including, “whether the individual was tested in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01,” and the Department failed to establish compliance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a) because Jundt was not provided with any implied consent advisory for chemical testing.
ISSUE 3: A prerequisite to a determination that there was a test administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01 is finding that the request for testing was made under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01. Because Jundt was not provided with any implied consent advisory for chemical testing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a), the request for testing was not in compliance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01, and therefore insufficient to support a sanction by the Department.
1. Jundt waived his argument that the Department lacked jurisdiction to suspend his driving privileges based on the Report and Notice failing to show compliance with the implied consent advisory under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a).
2. The providing of the implied consent advisory in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a) is not a basic and mandatory provision of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4).
3. Jundt was tested in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01 and his test results are admissible regardless of whether the inpied consent advisory was recited.
Corey Jundt appeals after his driving privileges were suspended for 180 days.
In January 2020, a Bismarck police officer stopped Jundt for a traffic violation. The officer investigated Jundt for driving under the influence of alcohol. Jundt consented to an onsite screening test and failed. The officer arrested Jundt for driving under the influence. Jundt consented to an Intoxilyzer breath test. The officer did not read Jundt the implied consent advisory relating to a chemical test after Jundt was arrested. After an administrative hearing, the hearing officer concluded the officer’s failure to read the implied consent advisory did not require suppression of the breath test results because Jundt consented to the test. The hearing officer suspended Jundt’s driving privileges for 180 days. Jundt appealed, and the district court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision to suspend Jundt’s driving privileges.
On appeal, Jundt argues his driving privileges should not have been suspended because the officer failed to read Jundt the implied consent advisory for chemical testing after Jundt was arrested.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||04/03/2020||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 04/03/2020|
|2||04/06/2020||Rec'd $125.00 filing fee (receipt #27560)|
|3||04/07/2020||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||04/07/2020||Notice Served on Chad R. McCabe and Michael T. Pitcher|
|5||04/07/2020||DISK - Administrative Transcript of Admin Agency Hearing dated February 3, 2020 (e-mailed)|
|6||05/05/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED MAY 4, 2020 (ENTRY NOS. 1-39)|
|9||05/13/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|10||05/14/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to ATB (page numbered)|
|11||05/19/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of ATB & ATA from CSD|
|13||06/12/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|14||06/16/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of AEB back from Central Duplicating|
|15||08/13/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|16||09/23/2020||APPEARANCES: Chad R. McCabe; Michael T. Pitcher|
|17||09/23/2020||ARGUED: Chad R. McCabe; Michael T. Pitcher|
|18||09/23/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|