851 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 2014), 20140047, Haynes v. Director, Department of Transportation
|Citation:||851 N.W.2d 172, 2014 ND 161|
|Opinion Judge:||McEvers, Justice.|
|Party Name:||Ducote Brown Haynes, Appellant v. Director, Department of Transportation, Appellee|
|Attorney:||Thomas M. Tuntland, Mandan, N.D., for appellant. Douglas B. Anderson, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice. Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.|
|Case Date:||July 31, 2014|
|Court:||Supreme Court of North Dakota|
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
[¶1] Ducote Brown Haynes appeals from a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision revoking his driving privileges for 180 days. We affirm, concluding the Department had authority to revoke Haynes' driving privileges in this state.
[¶2] On July 27, 2013, Officer Joshua Brown of the Bismarck Police Department arrested Haynes for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Before arresting Haynes, Brown read him the implied consent advisory and asked him to take an on-site screening test, but Haynes refused. Brown arrested Haynes, read him the implied consent advisory a second time, and requested that he take a chemical test, but Haynes again refused.
[¶3] Brown transported Haynes to the jail, but he did not have a copy of the correct Report and Notice form for Haynes. Brown went to the police station to obtain and fill out the Report and Notice. Brown's shift ended shortly after he filled out the Report and Notice and he requested another officer, Michael Paulson, issue the Report and Notice and deliver it to Haynes at the jail. Paulson testified he delivered the Report and Notice to the jail and placed it in an elevator for jail staff to retrieve.
[¶4] On July 31, 2013, Haynes requested an administrative hearing regarding the revocation of his driving privileges. At the hearing, Haynes argued the Department did not have authority to revoke his license because he was not immediately issued the Report and Notice. The hearing officer found Haynes received the Report and Notice and revoked Haynes' driving privileges for 180 days.
[¶5] Haynes appealed the decision to the district court, arguing the hearing officer erred in finding the Department had authority to revoke his license because the Report and Notice was not immediately issued and was not personally served on
him. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision.
[¶6] The Administrative Agencies Practice Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32, governs the review of a decision to revoke driving privileges. See Ike v. Director, N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ND 85, ¶ 6, 748 N.W.2d 692. In an appeal from a district court's review of an administrative agency's decision, we review the agency's decision. Wampler v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2014 ND 24, ¶ 6, 842 N.W.2d 877. Our review is limited and we give great deference to the agency's findings. Id. We do not make independent findings of fact or substitute our judgment for that of the agency; instead, we determine whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded the findings were supported by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. Id...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP