748 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2008), 20070302, Ike v. Director, North Dakota Dept. of Transp.
|Citation:||748 N.W.2d 692, 2008 ND 85|
|Opinion Judge:||SANDSTROM, Justice.|
|Party Name:||Jonathan P. IKE, Petitioner and Appellant v. DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent and Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Michael R. Hoffman, Bismarck, N.D., for petitioner and appellant., Douglas B. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellee.|
|Case Date:||May 15, 2008|
|Court:||Supreme Court of North Dakota|
Michael R. Hoffman , Bismarck, N.D., for petitioner and appellant.
Douglas B. Anderson , Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent and appellee.
SANDSTROM , Justice.
[¶ 1] Jonathan Ike appeals a district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days following his arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We affirm.
[¶ 2] Officer Heather Christianson of the Williston Police Department arrested Ike for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. She transported Ike to Mercy Medical Center in Williston to have a blood test taken. The blood test indicated Ike had an alcohol concentration of 0.16 percent by weight. Following the arrest, Ike requested an administrative hearing concerning the suspension or revocation of his operator's license.
[¶ 3] At the hearing, the officer testified she did not personally issue the Report and Notice form to Ike, which contained the temporary operator's permit. Although the officer signed the form indicating she personally issued the temporary operator's permit, she testified she did not issue it, and she did not know who did. She testified she signed the form accidentally. The Report and Notice form indicated Ike was issued the temporary operator's permit on May 24, 2007. Ike objected to the admittance of the Report and Notice form, arguing there was no evidence showing it was properly issued, but the hearing officer overruled the objection and admitted the form.
[¶ 4] Another exhibit offered by the Department at the hearing was Form 104, which contained Ike's blood test results. The individual who administered the blood test wrote additional letters following “MLT" on Form 104. Ike argued the additional letters do not appear on the State Toxicologist's “List of Approved Designations of Individuals Medically Qualified to Draw Blood." The initials MLT are an acronym for Medical Laboratory Technician, which is included in the State Toxicologist's list. Ike argued Form 104 should not have been admitted into evidence, because fair administration of the blood test was not followed. The...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP