State v. Beylund

¶1Filed 2/12/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72015 ND 27

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Steve Michael Beylund, Defendant and Appellant

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20140105

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of Bowman County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann Edward Greenwood, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29James D. Gion, P.O. Box 101, Regent, N.D. 58650-0101, for plaintiff and appellee.

¶30

¶31Thomas F. Murtha IV, P.O. Box 1111, Dickinson, N.D. 58602-1111, for defendant and appellant.

¶32State v. Beylund

¶33No. 20140105

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36[¶1] Steve Michael Beylund appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence after conditionally pleading guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and reserving his right to appeal the district court’s order.  Beylund argues the stop of his vehicle was unlawful, his consent to a blood test was coerced, and the implied consent laws are unconstitutional.  We conclude the district court’s decision that the officer’s approach to Beylund’s vehicle was valid under the community caretaker doctrine is supported by sufficient competent evidence.  Beylund’s argument that he was coerced by the implied consent advisory into taking the blood test was rejected in State v. Smith , 2014 ND 152, 849 N.W.2d 599, and McCoy v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp. , 2014 ND 119, 848 N.W.2d 659.  Beylund’s arguments that the implied consent laws violate the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine have been rejected in State v. Birchfield , 2015 ND 6, and Beylund v. Levi , 2015 ND 18, respectively.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

¶37[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶38Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶39Lisa Fair McEvers

¶40Daniel J. Crothers

¶41Dale V. Sandstrom