Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court reviews an administrative agency's decision to revoke a driver's license for refusing a chemical test following a DUI arrest. While the Court affirms the hearing officer's factual finding that the appellant refused the test, it concludes that law enforcement failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney as mandated by statute. Accordingly, the Court reverses the district court's judgment upholding the license revocation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the hearing officer erred in finding that Skobodzinski refused to submit to a chemical test.
- Whether the hearing officer erred in finding that Skobodzinski was given a reasonable opportunity to consult an attorney before deciding whether to take a chemical test.
- Whether the Department could revoke Skobodzinski's driving privileges when the opportunity to consult counsel was not reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Holdings
- The hearing officer did not err in finding that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test. His statement that he would take a blood test, his refusal to give a yes-or-no answer to the screening-test request, and his later responses invoking the Fifth Amendment reasonably supported the finding of refusal.
- Whether a driver was afforded a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney is determined by an objective review of the totality of the circumstances, and the ultimate significance of established facts is reviewed de novo.
- The trooper did not provide Skobodzinski a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney. Because Skobodzinski made an unambiguous request for counsel, the trooper could have allowed the call without materially interfering with testing or other police duties, and the delay may have eliminated the opportunity to cure the refusal, the revocation order was not in accordance with law and was unsupported by the hearing officer's findings.
Key quotations
“The appropriate inquiry is whether the police afforded [an arrestee] a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel in a meaningful way.” (¶ 15)
“The standard is reasonableness under the circumstances.” (¶ 25)
“Simply put, the linchpin for determining if police have given an accused a meaningful opportunity for contacting an attorney is reasonableness under the circumstances.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
A highway patrol trooper arrested Artur Skobodzinski after observing signs of alcohol use and after Skobodzinski declined field sobriety testing and answered "no" when asked whether he would take an on-site screening test. When asked to take a chemical breath test, Skobodzinski said he would take a blood test and later responded "5th Amendment" when the trooper asked about testing and an independent blood test. At 10:58 a.m., Skobodzinski requested to speak with a supervisor and an attorney, but was allowed to speak only with the supervisor at that time; he was not given access to a phone, internet, or phonebook to contact counsel until 12:05 p.m. at a law enforcement center in Dickinson. The record indicated an Intoxilyzer was available minutes away from the inspection site, and the trooper and hearing officer did not establish how long testing would have taken.
Procedural history
After Skobodzinski was arrested for driving under the influence, the Department held an administrative hearing and revoked his driving privileges for 180 days. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed both the district court's judgment and the hearing officer's revocation decision.