State v. Tompkins

Summary

Randy Tompkins conditionally pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and appealed the denial of suppression of a State-administered breath test. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that law enforcement did not impermissibly interfere with Tompkins’ statutory right to obtain an independent blood-alcohol test and affirmed the criminal judgment.

Holdings

1. Under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02, law enforcement must refrain from interfering with a defendant's reasonable opportunity to obtain an independent blood-alcohol test but has no affirmative duty to arrange or ensure that the test is obtained.
2. The officer did not impermissibly interfere with Tompkins's right to an independent blood test by transporting him to the hospital, calling ahead, remaining present during the blood draw, or failing to intervene in the hospital's testing procedures.
3. Routine testing of Tompkins's blood sample by the State Crime Lab and the State's Attorney's Office's receipt of the results did not constitute impermissible governmental interference under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02.
4. The State did not impermissibly interfere with Tompkins's right to an independent blood test, and the criminal judgment was affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether law enforcement impermissibly interfered with Tompkins's statutory right under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 to obtain an independent blood-alcohol test.
2. Whether the arresting officer's failure to explain that Tompkins could choose the medical facility and medical professional, the officer's presence during the blood draw, and the officer's failure to stop use of the State Crime Lab kit constituted impermissible interference.
3. Whether the State Crime Lab's routine testing of the blood sample and the State's Attorney's Office's receipt of the results required suppression of the breath-test results.

Disposition

affirmed