Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded an order suppressing blood-test results in a DUI prosecution. The Court held that the deputy had sufficient grounds to request a preliminary breath test and probable cause to arrest Boehm for DUI. Because the district court had not made factual findings regarding the voluntariness of Boehm’s consent or the reasonableness of the blood draw, those issues were remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State’s appeal from the suppression order was authorized because the suppressed blood-test evidence constituted substantial proof of a material fact.
- Whether the deputy had the statutory basis to request a preliminary breath test.
- Whether the deputy had probable cause to arrest Boehm for driving under the influence.
- Whether the district court could grant suppression without making findings on the voluntariness of Boehm’s consent to the blood test.
- Whether the district court could resolve the reasonableness of the blood draw without making factual findings.
Holdings
- The State’s appeal was properly before the Supreme Court because its prosecuting attorney’s statement adequately explained that the suppressed blood-test result was critical evidence and the record demonstrated its relevance.
- An officer need not possess probable cause sufficient for arrest to request a preliminary breath test. Under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(1), the officer need only have reason to believe that a traffic violation occurred and, based on observation, formulate an opinion that the driver’s body contains alcohol.
- The deputy had probable cause to arrest Boehm for DUI because he observed signs of impairment and had reason to believe the impairment was caused by alcohol.
- The case had to be remanded because the district court made no factual findings or determinations regarding whether Boehm voluntarily consented to the blood test or whether the blood draw was performed in a reasonable manner.
- Consent is not per se involuntary or coerced merely because an officer advises a driver of North Dakota’s implied-consent law, including the criminal penalty for refusal; voluntariness must still be determined from the totality of the circumstances.
- A blood test is not per se unreasonable merely because it is conducted at a jail rather than a hospital when performed by a medically qualified person.
Key quotations
“It is not necessary for a law enforcement officer to have probable cause sufficient for arrest to request a preliminary breath test.” (¶ 10)
“Both elements—impairment and indication of alcohol consumption—are necessary to establish probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence.” (¶ 12)
“The deputy had probable cause to arrest Boehm for DUI because the deputy observed some signs of physical or mental impairment and had reason to believe Boehm’s impairment was caused by alcohol.” (¶ 26)
Factual background
A Morton County deputy stopped Boehm after radar detected him driving 44 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. The deputy observed that Boehm had red, bloodshot, watery eyes, detected an odor of alcohol, heard Boehm admit consuming four beers, and observed him fail the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, although he passed alphabet and counting-backwards tests. Boehm agreed to a preliminary breath test, which registered .114 percent, and later agreed to a blood test after being advised of North Dakota’s implied-consent law; a registered nurse drew the blood at the county jail.
Procedural history
Boehm moved to suppress blood-test results, arguing the warrantless blood draw lacked voluntary consent, was conducted unreasonably, and implicated state and federal constitutional protections. Without an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted suppression on the ground that the deputy lacked probable cause to request a preliminary breath test, but it did not decide the voluntariness of consent or reasonableness of the blood draw. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further factual findings and determinations on those unresolved issues.
Remand instructions
The district court must make factual findings and determine whether Boehm voluntarily consented to the blood test under the totality of the circumstances and whether the blood test was extracted in a reasonable manner.