State v. Devine

2020 ND 208 (2020) · Supreme Court of North Dakota · October 21, 2020 · No. 20200033

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Christopher Lee Devine’s criminal judgment and the denial of his motion to suppress blood-test results. The court held that the exclusionary rule formerly codified in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) applied only to tests administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01, not to a blood test obtained under § 39-20-01.1 following a motor-vehicle accident involving death or serious bodily injury. The court therefore did not address Devine’s remaining arguments.

Court
Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the Court
Jon J. Jensen, Chief Justice; Daniel J. Crothers; Gerald W. VandeWalle; Jerod E. Tufte; Lisa Fair McEvers
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
October 21, 2020
Docket number
20200033
Procedural posture
Devine entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court denied his motion to suppress the results of a chemical blood test. He appealed the denial while preserving his suppression issue.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court defers to the district court's factual findings and resolves conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance; questions of law are fully reviewable.
Precedential value
published opinion
Parties
Christopher Lee Devine v. State of North Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencesearch and seizurestatutory interpretationcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureDUI and implied consentevidencestatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the incomplete implied-consent advisory required suppression of the chemical blood-test results under the exclusionary rule formerly codified in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b).
  2. Whether that statutory exclusionary rule applies to a blood test obtained under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1 after a motor-vehicle accident causing death or serious bodily injury.

Holdings

  1. The exclusionary rule formerly codified in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) applies only to tests administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01 and does not apply to a test administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1.
  2. The district court did not err in denying Devine's motion to suppress the blood-test results, and the criminal judgment is affirmed.

Key quotations

The statutory language is unambiguous, applies the exclusionary rule only to tests administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01, and does not extend the exclusionary rule to tests administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1. (¶ 14)
Because the test at issue was administered under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1, the exclusionary rule did not apply, and the district court did not err in denying Devine’s motion to suppress. (¶ 15)

Factual background

On March 23, 2019, officers responded to a two-vehicle accident involving Devine's vehicle. One passenger died and two others sustained injuries requiring medical treatment. After obtaining a search warrant, officers obtained Devine's blood sample, but the implied-consent advisory omitted the warning that refusal to submit to a urine or breath test is a crime punishable in the same manner as driving under the influence.

Procedural history

After a fatal motor-vehicle accident, law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Devine's blood and collected a sample after reading him an incomplete implied-consent advisory. The Cass County District Court ruled the blood-test results admissible because the warrant made further consent unnecessary and entered judgment following Devine's conditional guilty plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…