Opinion
No. 20140105.
02-12-2015
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Steve Michael BEYLUND, Defendant and Appellant.
James D. Gion, Regent, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee. Thomas F. Murtha IV, Dickinson, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
James D. Gion, Regent, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Thomas F. Murtha IV, Dickinson, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
[¶ 1] Steve Michael Beylund appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence after conditionally pleading guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and reserving his right to appeal the district court's order. Beylund argues the stop of his vehicle was unlawful, his consent to a blood test was coerced, and the implied consent laws are unconstitutional. We conclude the district court's decision that the officer's approach to Beylund's vehicle was valid under the community caretaker doctrine is supported by sufficient competent evidence. Beylund's argument that he was coerced by the implied consent advisory into taking the blood test was rejected in State v. Smith, 2014 ND 152, 849 N.W.2d 599, and McCoy v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2014 ND 119, 848 N.W.2d 659. Beylund's arguments that the implied consent laws violate the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine have been rejected in State v. Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, 858 N.W.2d 302, and Beylund v. Levi, 2015 ND 18, respectively. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
[¶ 2] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, LISA FAIR McEVERS, DANIEL J. CROTHERS, and DALE V. SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.