Kasowski v. Director, N.D. Dept. of Transp

5 Citing cases

  1. Washburn v. Levi

    2015 N.D. 299 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Relying on Kasowski v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2011 ND 92, ¶ 14, 797 N.W.2d 40

    An arrestee's statutory right to request to speak with an attorney must be unambiguous. Kasowski v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2011 ND 92, ¶ 14, 797 N.W.2d 40. “An arrestee cannot complain about a law enforcement officer's reasonable interpretation of the arrestee's ambiguous statements.” Id. (quoting Lange v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2010 ND 201, ¶ 7, 790 N.W.2d 28).

  2. City of Gwinner v. Vincent

    2017 N.D. 82 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 7 times

    " State v. Lee , 2012 ND 97, ¶ 9, 816 N.W.2d 782. "An arrestee's statutory right to request to speak with an attorney must be unambiguous." Washburn v. Levi , 2015 ND 299, ¶ 13, 872 N.W.2d 605 (relying on Kasowski v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2011 ND 92, ¶ 14, 797 N.W.2d 40 ). " ‘An arrestee cannot complain about a law enforcement officer's reasonable interpretation of the arrestee's ambiguous statements.

  3. Cudmore v. Director

    2016 N.D. 64 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    “This Court reviews the administrative revocation and suspension of driving privileges under the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28–32.” Kasowski v. N.D. Dept. of Transp., 2011 ND 92, ¶ 5, 797 N.W.2d 40. We must affirm the administrative hearing officer's decision, unless:

  4. State v. Lee

    2012 N.D. 97 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    [¶ 4] Lee contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the Intoxilyzer test results, claiming his statement to the arresting officer that “I've got to have Cash give me a good try” invoked his statutory right to consult with an attorney before submitting to the chemical test and triggered the officer's duty to provide a reasonable opportunity for Lee to do so. [¶ 5] “A person arrested for driving under the influence (‘DUI’) has a limited statutory right under N.D.C.C. ch. 39–20 to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test for intoxication.” Kasowski v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2011 ND 92, ¶ 6, 797 N.W.2d 40;see also In re R.P., 2008 ND 39, ¶¶ 11–12, 745 N.W.2d 642;State v. Pace, 2006 ND 98, ¶ 6, 713 N.W.2d 535;Eriksmoen v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2005 ND 206, ¶ 8, 706 N.W.2d 610. We have outlined the scope of the limited statutory right: “An arrested person who asks to speak with an attorney before taking a chemical test must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not materially interfere with the test administration.”

  5. City of Jamestown v. Schultz

    2020 N.D. 154 (N.D. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    This Court has consistently applied the holding in Kuntz since the statute was revised in 2005, with no action by the Legislative Assembly. Neutman v. N.D. Dep't , 2019 ND 288, 935 N.W.2d 788 ; Jesser v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2019 ND 287, 936 N.W.2d 102 ; City of Bismarck v. King , 2019 ND 74, 924 N.W.2d 137 ; State v. Von Ruden , 2017 ND 185, 900 N.W.2d 58 ; City of Dickinson v. Schank , 2017 ND 81, 892 N.W.2d 593 ; Koehly v. Levi , 2016 ND 202, 886 N.W.2d 689 ; Cudmore v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2016 ND 64, 877 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Keller , 2016 ND 63, 876 N.W.2d 724 ; Washburn v. Levi , 2015 ND 299, 872 N.W.2d 605 ; Schlittenhart v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2015 ND 179, 865 N.W.2d 825 ; Herrman v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2014 ND 129, 847 N.W.2d 768 ; Gardner v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2012 ND 223, 822 N.W.2d 55 ; Bell v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2012 ND 102, 816 N.W.2d 786 ; Kasowski v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2011 ND 92, 797 N.W.2d 40 ; Interest of R.P. , 2008 ND 39, 745 N.W.2d 642 ; Lies v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2008 ND 30, 744 N.W.2d 783 ; State v. Pace , 2006 ND 98, 713 N.W.2d 535 ; Eriksmoen v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2005 ND 206, 706 N.W.2d 610. [¶21] As this Court noted in Olson v. Job Serv. N.D. , 2013 ND 24, ¶ 50, 827 N.W.2d 36 (Sandstrom, Justice, dissenting):