City of Grand Forks v. Barendt

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed suppression of Thomas Barendt’s chemical breath-test results in a prosecution for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The court held that under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01, the implied consent advisory must be read after the individual is placed under arrest and before the chemical test is administered. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering Barendt’s untimely suppression motion.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering Barendt's untimely suppression motion because it implicitly found good cause and the City failed to show prejudice.
2. The implied consent advisory must be read after placing an individual under arrest and before administering a chemical test to determine alcohol concentration or the presence of other drugs.
3. The chemical breath test results were inadmissible because the implied consent advisory was not read after Barendt's arrest and before the test was administered.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by considering Barendt's suppression motion after the pretrial motion deadline.
2. Whether N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01 requires the implied consent advisory to be read after the individual is placed under arrest and before administration of the chemical test.
3. Whether the chemical breath test results were inadmissible because the advisory was not provided at the required time.

Disposition

affirmed