Wojahn v. Levi

¶1Filed 3/19/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72015 ND 50

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11Douglas Dale Wojahn, Petitioner and Appellant

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Grant Levi, Director of the North

¶16Dakota Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellee

¶17

¶18

¶19

¶20No. 20140315

¶21

¶22

¶23

¶24Appeal from the District Court of Billings County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Zane Anderson, Judge.

¶25

¶26AFFIRMED.

¶27

¶28Per Curiam.

¶29

¶30Thomas F. Murtha IV, P.O. Box 1111, Dickinson, ND 58602-1111, for petitioner and appellant.

¶31

¶32Douglas B. Anderson, Office of Attorney General, 500 N. Ninth St., Bismarck, ND 58501-4509, for respondent and appellee.

¶33Wojahn v. Levi

¶34No. 20140315

¶35

¶36Per Curiam.

¶37[¶1] Douglas Wojahn appealed from a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation order suspending his North Dakota driving privileges for 91 days.  Wojahn argued the warrantless search of his breath and blood was unlawful, his consent to the searches was coerced, and the implied consent statute is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8.  We have previously determined that consent to a blood-alcohol test is not, standing alone, involuntary or coerced because an individual is advised of the implied consent law which criminalizes refusal.   See State v. Beylund , 2015 ND 27, ¶ 1; State v. Harns , 2015 ND 45, ¶ 1, and cases cited therein.  Wojahn’s argument that the implied consent laws violate the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8, or fall within the unconstitutional conditions doctrine have previously been rejected.   State v. Birchfield , 2015 ND 6, ¶¶ 11-17, 858 N.W.2d 302; Beylund v. Levi , 2015 ND 18, ¶¶ 14-30.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

¶38[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶39Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶40Lisa Fair McEvers

¶41Daniel J. Crothers

¶42Dale V. Sandstrom