Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Washburn

Supreme Court of North Dakota

January 15, 2015

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Jayden Rae Washburn, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.

Britta K. Demello Rice (argued), Assistant State's Attorney, and Tessa Vaagen (on brief), under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.

Lloyd C. Suhr (argued) and Jackson J. Lofgren (on brief), Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellee.

Ken R. Sorenson (on brief), Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, amicus curiae North Dakota Attorney General.

Justin J. Vinje (on brief), Bismarck, N.D., amicus curiae North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Chad R. McCabe (on brief), Bismarck, ND, and Donald J. Ramsell (on brief), Wheaton, IL, amicus curiae National College for DUI Defense, Inc.

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

[¶1] The State appeals from a district court order dismissing the prosecution of Jayden Washburn for refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(e) after she submitted to field tests for intoxication and was arrested for driving under the influence. The district court determined the State could not constitutionally criminalize a driver's exercise of the right to refuse to submit to a warrantless chemical test. The State argues the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures do not preclude the State from criminally charging Washburn with refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. In State v. Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, ¶ ¶ 1, 19, 858 N.W.2d 302, we recently held the criminal refusal statute did not violate Birchfield's right to be free from an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, § 8. We reverse the district court order under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and Birchfield, and we remand for further proceedings.

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J., Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.