Search Tips

Jundt v. NDDOT

Docket No. 20200115
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:30 AM

Docket Info

Title
Corey Lee Jundt, Appellant
v.
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
Oral Argument 9/23/2020

Parties' Statement of Issues

  • Appellant

    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.

  • Appellee 1

    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.


Summary

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.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
05/13/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
06/12/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLEE ATT. GENERAL OFFICE Michael Trent Pitcher - 06369
APPELLANT PRIVATE PRACTICE Chad Rory McCabe - 05474

(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)
7 05/13/2020 APPELLANT BRIEF View
8 05/13/2020 APPELLANT APPENDIX
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
12 06/12/2020 APPELLEE BRIEF View
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