Dustin Alan LeClair v. Thomas Sorel, Director, Department of Transportation

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed a district court judgment that had reinstated Dustin Alan LeClair’s driving privileges. The court held that an implied consent advisory omitting the word “punishable” nevertheless substantively complied with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a), making the Intoxilyzer results admissible and permitting suspension of LeClair’s driving privileges.

Holdings

1. An implied consent advisory need not be read word-for-word; the advisory is sufficient when it conveys all substantive information required by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a) in a manner reasonably calculated to be comprehensible to the driver. Omitting the word "punishable" did not change the advisory's substantive meaning because a crime is, by definition, punishable.
2. The Intoxilyzer test results were admissible because the officer's advisory was substantively complete and complied with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b).
3. The district court erred in reversing the Department's suspension decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the officer's omission of the word "punishable" from the implied consent advisory rendered the advisory substantively incomplete under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a).
2. Whether the Intoxilyzer test results were admissible under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) despite the omission.
3. Whether the district court erred in reversing the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend LeClair's driving privileges.

Disposition

reversed