Jones v. Levi, 20160216
Decision Date | 20 December 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 20160216,20160216 |
Citation | 888 N.W.2d 765 |
Parties | Kristin Marie JONES, Appellee v. Grant LEVI, Director, Department of Transportation, Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Luke T. Heck, Fargo, ND, for appellee.
Andrew Moraghan, Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for appellant.
[¶ 1] The Department of Transportation appeals a judgment reversing the Department's decision to suspend Kristin Jones' driving privileges for 180 days. The Department argues the district court erred by reversing the hearing officer's decision on grounds not identified in her specifications of error. Because the basis for the district court's decision was not raised in the administrative hearing, we reverse the judgment and reinstate the administrative decision.
[¶ 2] West Fargo Police Officer Benjamin Orr arrested Kristin Jones for driving under the influence. At the administrative hearing Orr testified Jones agreed to submit to a blood draw. Orr transported Jones to Essentia Hospital for the blood draw. Following the blood draw Orr mailed the blood sample to the toxicology lab. Orr filled out the Report and Notice form except the portion stating the results of the blood test. Orr signed and dated the Report and Notice form. Orr testified he believed another officer, Lieutenant Duane Sall, received the toxicology lab results and filled out the remaining portion of the Report and Notice form. Specifically, Sall recorded the test results on the form, completed the certificate of mailing/issuance and mailed out the Report and Notice form.
[¶ 3] The hearing officer suspended Jones' driver's license for 180 days concluding it was "acceptable for Officer Orr to delegate portions of the mailing process to other staff within his office." Jones appealed to the district court arguing the hearing officer erred in finding Orr satisfied the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 39–20–03.1 and the Report and Notice form was deficient. Jones further requested attorney's fees and costs. The district court reversed the hearing officer's decision that the arresting officer was not required under N.D.C.C. § 39–20–05(4)1 to personally mail the Report and Notice form to the Department. The district court denied Jones' request for attorney's fees and costs. Id . The Department appeals.
[¶ 4] This Court reviews an administrative revocation of a driver's license under N.D.C.C. § 28–32–46. Deeth v. Director, North Dakota Dept. of Transp. , 2014 ND 232, ¶ 10, 857 N.W.2d 86. We affirm the hearing officer's decision unless:
N.D.C.C. § 28–32–46. The district court sits as the first appellate court. "Although this Court's review is limited to the record before the administrative agency, ‘the district court's analysis is entitled to respect if its reasoning is sound.’ " Deeth , 2014 ND 232, ¶ 10, 857 N.W.2d 86 (quoting Obrigewitch v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Trans. , 2002 ND 177, ¶ 7, 653 N.W.2d 73 ). "An agency's conclusions on questions of law are subject to full review." Id. (quoting Vanlishout v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2011 ND 138, ¶ 12, 799 N.W.2d 397 ) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
[¶ 5] The Department claims Jones failed to argue at the administrative hearing that it was contrary to N.D.C.C. ch. 39-20 for Sall, rather than arresting Officer Orr, to personally forward the Report and Notice form to the Department. Courts have limited authority to review administrative agency decisions:
Daniels v. Ziegler , 2013 ND 157, ¶ 6, 835 N.W.2d 852 (internal quotation marks omitted).
[¶ 6] The scope of appeal is limited to issues raised in the administrative proceeding. See Bjerklie v. Workforce Safety and Insurance , 2005 ND 178, ¶ 6, 704 N.W.2d 818 ()
[¶ 7] At the administrative hearing, the only objection to admission of the Report and Notice was made on foundational grounds, stating:
[¶ 8] In closing argument Jones argued the Report and Notice form was deficient, stating:
[¶ 9] The hearing officer overruled the objection, stating:
"All right. There is some case law that we have that allows the admission of the Report and Notice without the testimony of the person that mailed it and I'm trying to think of the name of the case. Is it Frost? The testimony was sufficient to authenticate the exhibit. So the objections are overruled. Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence.
[¶ 10] The transcript shows Jones' objection at the administrative hearing was that the Report and Notice lacked sufficient authentication for admission into evidence. The hearing officer overruled the objection by concluding Exhibit 1 was sufficiently authenticated. Consistent with the objection at the administrative hearing, Jones' specifications of error on appeal was that Officer Orr could not provide testimony or foundational evidence for the Report and Notice (and other documents) because Lieutenant Sall filled in that information.
[¶ 11] The district court's reversal of the Department's decision was not because Exhibit 1 lacked authentication. Nor was the lack of sufficient foundation for admission of Exhibit 1 a specifications of error. Because the basis for the district court's decision was not raised in the administrative hearing, we reverse the judgment and reinstate the administrative decision.
[¶ 12] Jones requests attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. § 28–32–50(1), which states:
"In any civil judicial proceeding involving as adverse parties an...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Solwey v. Solwey
-
Grove v. Dep't of Transp.
...the basis of the decision was not raised in the administrative hearing." Ouradnik , at ¶ 12 (citing Jones v. Levi , 2016 ND 245, ¶ 11, 888 N.W.2d 765 ). [¶9] In addition to objecting at the administrative hearing, the appealing party must comply with the specification-of-error requirement p......
-
Ouradnik v. Henke
...district court’s judgment when the basis of the decision was not raised in the administrative hearing. Jones v. Levi , 2016 ND 245, ¶ 11, 888 N.W.2d 765. [¶13] In addition to the lack of objection during the administrative hearing, when a request for judicial review of an administrative dec......