Jorgensen v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp

11 Citing cases

  1. Whitecalfe v. Dept. of Transp

    2007 N.D. 32 (N.D. 2007)   Cited 23 times
    Stating if "the basic and mandatory provisions of [section 39-20-04] have not been met, the Department lacks authority to revoke an individual's driving privileges" for refusal to submit to testing

    [¶ 6] Whitecalfe and Berg argue the Department lacked authority to revoke their driving privileges and they were denied due process because the driver's copy of the report and notice did not contain the law enforcement officer's statement of probable cause. Relying on Aamodt v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2004 ND 134, 682 N.W.2d 308, and Jorgensen v. North Dakota Dep't of Tramp., 2005 ND 80, 695 N.W.2d 212, they claim due process and N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04 require the driver to be informed about the officer's factual basis for probable cause before deciding whether to request an administrative hearing to contest the revocation. [¶ 7] The Administrative Agencies Practice Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32, governs our review of the Department's administrative suspension or revocation of a person's driver's license.

  2. Potratz v. N.D. Dep't of Transp.

    843 N.W.2d 305 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    “A properly completed report meeting the basic and mandatory provisions of the statute, along with the other matters required by the statute, is intended to give the Department the authority to suspend a driver's license and to provide a driver the means to know what the officer was relying on.” Wampler, 2014 ND 24, ¶ 8. In Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 80, ¶ 13, 695 N.W.2d 212 (citations omitted), this Court reasoned: Section 39–20–03.

  3. Wampler v. N.D. Dep't of Transp.

    2014 N.D. 24 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 7 times

    1(4) (2011). “A properly completed report meeting ‘the basic and mandatory provisions of the statute,’ along with the other matters required by the statute, is intended to give the Department the authority to suspend a driver's license and to provide a driver the means ‘to know what the officer was relying on[.]’ ” Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 80, ¶ 12, 695 N.W.2d 212 (citations omitted). [¶ 9] In Jorgensen, 2005 ND 80, ¶¶ 12–13, 695 N.W.2d 212, this Court held that inclusion of the blood alcohol test results in the law enforcement officer's certified written report is a basic and mandatory provision of the statute , without which the Department may not suspend a person's driving privileges.

  4. Morrow v. Ziegler

    2013 N.D. 28 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Determining the report was deficient, this Court said that the "report must in some way convey that the officer believed the person’s body contained alcohol"

    Id. Similarly, this Court ruled in Jorgensen that an officer's failure to write the results of a blood test for blood alcohol content on the Report and Notice made the report deficient. Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 80, ¶ 12, 695 N.W.2d 212. [¶ 11] In this case, the Report and Notice had a check box to indicate “Refused onsite screening test (NDCC Section 39–20–14 or 39–06.2–10.2).”

  5. Baesler v. N.D.Dep't of Transp.

    812 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    [¶ 10] We have explained that “the Department's authority to suspend driving privileges is governed by statute and that the Department must meet basic and mandatory statutory provisions to have authority to suspend driving privileges.” Schaaf v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2009 ND 145, ¶ 9, 771 N.W.2d 237 (and cases cited therein); see, e.g., Jorgensen v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 80, ¶¶ 11–13, 695 N.W.2d 212 (Department lacked authority to suspend driver's license when police officer failed to include the blood alcohol test result in the officer's certified report to the Department because inclusion of test result was basic and mandatory under N.D.C.C. § 39–20–03.1(3)); Aker v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 81, ¶ 1, 704 N.W.2d 286 (district court's reversal of a hearing officer's decision to suspend driving privileges summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and Jorgensen, 2005 ND 80, 695 N.W.2d 212);Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶¶ 7–10, 571 N.W.2d 151 (Department lacked authority to suspend when officer failed to submit first blood sample for testing to obtain an analytical report as required under N.D.C.C. § 39–20–03.

  6. Christiansen v. Panos

    2022 N.D. 27 (N.D. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    [¶17] Although we are not analyzing this case under the "basic and mandatory" rationale, the Court's precedent follows the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04.1. See Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (holding the prerequisite for jurisdiction is the report and test records); Aamodt v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2004 ND 134, ¶¶ 25-26, 682 N.W.2d 308 (holding the report must contain enough information to establish reasonable grounds to suspend driving privileges); Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 80, ¶ 13, 695 N.W.2d 212 (holding the report must contain chemical test results). [¶18] Section 39-20-04.

  7. Schock v. N.D. Dep't of Transp.

    2012 N.D. 77 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    We have held the Department's failure to strictly comply with some statutory provisions deprived the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges. See Jorgensen v. N.D. Department of Transportation, 2005 ND 80, ¶ 13, 695 N.W.2d 212 (officer's failure to record the results of a chemical test on the report and notice form deprived the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges); Aamodt, 2004 ND 134, ¶¶ 23, 25–26, 682 N.W.2d 308 (officer's failure to list on the report and notice form the reasonable grounds to believe the driver was in physical control of a moving vehicle, as required by statute, deprived the Department of authority to suspend license); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D.1994) (officer's failure to submit the results of all the blood-alcohol tests administered to the driver deprived the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges). [¶ 33] Conversely, we have held the Department's failure to strictly comply with other statutory provisions did not deprive the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges when the statutory provision was not a basic and mandatory provision requiring compliance.

  8. Schock v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp.

    2012 N.D. 77 (N.D. 2012)

    We have held the Department's failure to strictly comply with some statutory provisions deprived the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges. See Jorgensen v. N.D. Department of Transportation, 2005 ND 80, ¶ 13, 695 N.W.2d 212 (officer's failure to record the results of a chemical test on the report and notice form deprived the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges); Aamodt, 2004 ND 134, ¶¶ 23, 25-26, 682 N.W.2d 308 (officer's failure to list on the report and notice form the reasonable grounds to believe the driver was in physical control of a moving vehicle, as required by statute, deprived the Department of authority to suspend license); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (officer's failure to submit the results of all the blood-alcohol tests administered to the driver deprived the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges). [¶33] Conversely, we have held the Department's failure to strictly comply with other statutory provisions did not deprive the Department of authority to suspend driving privileges when the statutory provision was not a basic and mandatory provision requiring compliance.

  9. Maisey v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp

    2009 N.D. 191 (N.D. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Stating poor balance shows physical or mental impairment

    Whitecalfe, 2007 ND 32, ¶ 8, 727 N.W.2d 779 (citing Aamodt, 2004 ND 134, ¶ 15, 682 N.W.2d 308). Interpretation of a statute is a question of law. Id. (citing Jorgensen v. N.D. Dep't of Tramp., 2005 ND 80, ¶ 7, 695 N.W.2d 212). [¶ 12] In Aamodt, this Court discussed N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.

  10. Schaaf v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp

    2009 N.D. 145 (N.D. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    [¶ 9] This Court has recognized that the Department's authority to suspend driving privileges is governed by statute and that the Department must meet basic and mandatory statutory provisions to have authority to suspend driving privileges. See Brewer v. Ziegler, 2007 ND 207, ¶¶ 13-16, 743 N.W.2d 391 (report filed by officer with Department under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(3) included sufficient information to show officer's basis for finding probable cause to arrest driver; driver's assertion Department lacked jurisdiction to suspend license without merit); Whitecalfe v. North Dakota Dep't ofTransp., 2007 ND 32, ¶¶ 9-13, 727 N.W.2d 779 (N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04 governs procedures for revoking driving privileges for refusing to submit to chemical testing; statute only requires driver receive temporary operator's permit and does not require officer's statement of probable cause be given to driver with temporary operator's permit); Jorgensen v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 80, ¶¶ 7-13, 695 N.W.2d 212 (result of chemical test was basic and mandatory and Department lacked authority to suspend driving privileges because officer failed to record the chemical test result on the copy of the report and notice sent to' Department); Aamodt v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2004 ND 134, ¶¶ 14-26, 682 N.W.2d 308 (statutory provision requiring arresting officer forward to the director a certified written report showing officer had reasonable grounds to believe person had been driving or was in actual physical control was mandatory; officer's failure to identify reasonable grounds in report to Department deprived Department of jurisdiction to suspend operator's license); Dworshak v. Moore, 1998 ND 172, ¶¶ 9-15, 583 N.W.2d 799 (officer's failure to immediately issue driver temporary operator's permit under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04(1) is not jurisdictional and does not deprive Department of authority to revoke operator's driving privileges); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶¶ 7