Mesch v. Levi

¶1Filed 4/22/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72015 ND 86

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11David Michael Mesch, Petitioner and Appellant

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Grant Levi, Director of the North Dakota

¶16Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellee

¶17

¶18

¶19

¶20No. 20140419

¶21

¶22

¶23

¶24Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann Edward Greenwood, Judge.

¶25

¶26AFFIRMED.

¶27

¶28Per Curiam.

¶29

¶30Thomas F. Murtha IV, P.O. Box 1111, Dickinson, N.D. 58602-1111, for petitioner and appellant; on brief.

¶31

¶32Douglas B. Anderson, Office of Attorney General, 500 North Ninth Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for respondent and appellee; on brief.

¶33Mesch v. Levi

¶34No. 20140419

¶35

¶36Per Curiam.

¶37[¶1] David Mesch appealed from a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer’s decision suspending his driving privileges for 180 days.  Mesch argues the warrantless search of his breath was unlawful because his consent to the searches was coerced, and the implied consent statute is unconstitutional because it violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.  We have previously held that consent to a chemical breath test is not involuntary or coerced solely because an individual is advised of the implied consent law, which criminalizes refusal.  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.  We have also previously rejected Mesch’s argument that the implied consent law is unconstitutional because it violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.  Beylund v. Levi, 2015 ND 18, ¶¶ 16-30, 859 N.W.2d 403.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

¶38[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶39Dale V. Sandstrom

¶40Daniel J. Crothers

¶41Lisa Fair McEvers

¶42Carol Ronning Kapsner