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.
CITY OF DICKINSON, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Kalden VAAGEN, Defendant and Appellant
[¶1] Kalden Vaagen appeals from a criminal judgment finding him guilty of driving under the influence. At the time of Vaagen’s arrest, the arresting officer read Vaagen North Dakota’s implied consent advisory which informed Vaagen that refusal to take a chemical breath test is a crime punishable in the same manner as driving under the influence, but omitted the portion of the advisory regarding the punishment associated with refusal to submit to a urine test. Vaagen submitted to a chemical breath test.
[¶2] Vaagen argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the chemical test records and results because the arresting officer failed to inform Vaagen of a complete and specific implied consent advisory under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a). We agree, concluding State v. Vigen, 2019 ND 134, ¶ 14, 927 N.W.2d 430, is dispositive of this appeal. We summarily reverse and remand the district court’s judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b), concluding the arresting officer failed to fully inform Vaagen of the contents of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a). See Vigen, at ¶ 14 (omission of the portion of the implied consent advisory that informs arrestees of the consequences for refusing to submit to a urine test is a failure to fully inform the arrestee of the contents of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a) and therefore any evidence obtained as a result of the breath test is inadmissable under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b)).
[¶4] I respectfully dissent. For the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Bohe, 2018 ND 216, 917 N.W.2d 497, I would affirm the district court judgment. I am still of the opinion that the legislature did not intend for law enforcement to provide misinformation to a driver.
[¶6] I dissent. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Schoon v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation, 2018 ND 210, 917 N.W.2d 199, I would affirm the district court judgment in this case.
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20190053
Decided: June 27, 2019
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)