Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After the United States Supreme Court remanded these administrative license suspension cases to the North Dakota Supreme Court for further proceedings under "Birchfield v. North Dakota," (136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016)), the North Dakota Court directed reargument on issues about: (1) the appropriate forum to determine findings regarding voluntariness of the drivers' consent to warrantless blood tests incident to a lawful arrest; and (2) if the drivers' consent was not voluntary, whether evidence must be suppressed in an administrative license suspension proceeding. For purposes of these appeals only, the Court assumed the drivers' consent to the warrantless blood tests as involuntary and concluded the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of the results of the warrantless blood tests in the license suspension proceedings. The Court therefore affirmed the judgments upholding the suspensions. View "Beylund v. Levi" on Justia Law

Raymond Voisine appealed a district court order finding he remained a sexually dangerous individual and denying his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. Voisine did not contest he met the first factor of a sexually dangerous individual, that he has engaged in sexually predatory conduct. Rather, Voisine argued the district court erred when it determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that he: (1) suffered from a congenital or acquired condition that was manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; (2) was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct; and (3) had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of Voisine" on Justia Law

The Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a Department order revoking Josue Castillo's driving privileges for 180 days for refusing to submit to onsite screening and chemical tests. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, concluding the Department could still administratively revoke driving privileges when the officer had not told the driver that the refusal of the onsite breath test could be cured by submitting to a subsequent chemical test. The Court reinstated the Department's revocation order. View "Castillo v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Department of Transportation appealed a judgment reversing the Department's decision to suspend Kristin Jones' driving privileges for 180 days. The Department argued the district court erred by reversing the hearing officer's decision on grounds not identified in Jones’ specifications of error. The Supreme Court found that the basis for the district court’s decision to reverse the Department’s order should have been properly raised by the appellee at the administrative level. Therefore, the district court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Department’s decision. View "Jones v. Levi" on Justia Law

Western Petroleum, LLC, and Maxum Petroleum Operating Company, Inc., doing business as Pilot Logistics Services (Pilot), appealed a district court order affirming their appeal of the Williams County Board of County Commissioners' decision to penalize Pilot for violating the county's temporary housing regulations. In September 2011 the Williams County Board of County Commissioners adopted temporary housing regulations relating to the use of "man camps" or "crew housing facilities" in the county. The use of temporary housing on property within the county was prohibited without a conditional use permit. In 2014 the Board became aware that Pilot was using its property for temporary housing after Western Petroleum's permit expired. Pilot was out of compliance on 40 RVs since September 6, 2012, and on seven mobile home units since September 6, 2013. Pilot also had two two-story framed houses on the property that were not permitted under Western Petroleum's conditional use permit. At its July 2014 meeting, the Board assessed a $29,635,000 penalty against Pilot for violating the temporary housing regulations. The Board calculated the penalty by treating each non-permitted use as a violation subject to a $1,000 penalty per day. The Board calculated the $1,000 penalty on a per housing unit, per day basis. The Board offered Pilot a reduced penalty of $1,885,000 if paid within 10 days. Pilot did not pay the reduced penalty and the Board imposed the full penalty. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding the penalty against Pilot was supported by the evidence and was not an unreasonable interpretation of the temporary housing regulations. The North Dakota Supreme Court disagreed, reversed and remanded because the Board unreasonably interpreted the regulations. View "Western Petroleum, LLC v. Williams Cty. Bd. of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Jesse Koehly appealed the district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's order suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. Koehly argued the implied consent law as to breath tests violated the state and federal constitutions, he cured his refusal, and the police officers violated his limited right to counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Koehly v. Levi" on Justia Law

Dakota Outdoor Advertising, LLC ("Dakota") appealed the district court's order affirming the Bismarck Board of Commissioner's ("Board") decision affirming the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission's ("Commission") denial of an application for a special use permit. City of Bismarck ordinances regulating placement of digital billboards were changed since the district court entered judgment in this case. Section 14-03-08(3)(b)(2)(j) no longer included a provision for obtaining a special use permit for a digital billboard at a distance of less than 300 feet from a residential area. The current provisions governing siting of digital billboards would no longer permit Dakota to obtain a special use permit for the proposed site. The Board argued this appeal was now made moot. After review, the Supreme Court did not find this appeal was moot, but also found that the Board's decision to deny the special use permit was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order affirming the Board's decision to deny the special use permit. View "Dakota Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law

The City of Fargo appealed a judgment declaring an ordinance relating to construction on property located near rivers unconstitutional under the equal protection clauses of the North Dakota and United States Constitutions. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding the ordinance's distinction between platted and unplatted property was rationally related to Fargo's interest in limiting new construction on property near rivers. View "Ferguson v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

Nicole Jacobson appealed when the district court denied her motion to dismiss and she conditionally pled guilty to driving under suspension or revocation under Grand Forks City Code section 8-0201. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in analyzing Jacobson's motion to dismiss under N.D.C.C. 39-06-42 and by failing to apply relevant municipal code provisions. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Grand Forks v. Jacobson" on Justia Law

In August 2014, the First Western Bank and Trust (Bank) applied for two variances from City of Minot zoning regulations for off-street parking after incorrectly calculating the size of an addition to its bank building. The Bank's application sought to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for its building from 131 to 110 and to reduce the required width of each parking space from 10 to 9 feet. After notice to the Bank's neighbors, the Minot Planning Commission met to consider the application, and several neighbors appeared to oppose the application. The Planning Commission approved the application, finding the existence of an exceptional topographical hardship and the variances could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without impairing the general purpose and intent of Minot's comprehensive zoning plan. The Planning Commission affirmed its earlier decision approving the application. The City Council later affirmed the Planning Commission's decision. Sixteen Minot residents living near the Bank appealed a judgment dismissing their appeal of the City Council’s decision to grant the Bank's application for zoning variances. The residents argued the district court erred in ruling they lacked standing under N.D.C.C. 40-47-12 to appeal the City Council's decision granting the variances. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in applying N.D.C.C. 40-47-12 as grounds for its standing decision. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded the residents were not aggrieved applicants authorized to appeal a variance decision under N.D.C.C. 40-47-11. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment dismissing their appeal. View "Schmidt v. City of Minot" on Justia Law