Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Mark CHADWICK, Petitioner and Appellant, v. North Dakota DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent and Appellee.
[¶ 1] Mark Chadwick appeals from the judgment of the district court affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision suspending his license for 365 days for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A Jamestown police officer heard Chadwick arguing with his wife. Investigating further, the police officer found Chadwick in the driver's seat of an idling vehicle. Chadwick was turned with his feet out the door to converse with his wife. The officer detected the odor of alcohol and observed Chadwick's eyes were glossy and bloodshot. After failing field sobriety tests, Chadwick was arrested.
[¶ 2] Chadwick concedes he was intoxicated. He argues he was not in control of the vehicle. “The key factor in determining actual physical control is whether the defendant is able to manipulate the vehicle's controls.” City of Fargo v. Novotny, 1997 ND 73, ¶ 7, 562 N.W.2d 95. In this case, Chadwick was found conscious in the driver's seat of his idling vehicle. The hearing officer's findings of fact that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest Chadwick for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact, and the decision to suspend Chadwick's license is in accordance with the law. We affirm.
KAPSNER, Justice.
[¶ 3] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., MARY MUEHLEN MARING, DALE V. SANDSTROM, and WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 20010174.
Decided: December 05, 2001
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)