Case Title: Langer v. STATE HIGHWAY COMM'R

Citation: 409 N.W.2d 635

Docket Number: 870025

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1987-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
409 N.W.2d 635 (1987) Donald L. LANGER, Petitioner and Appellee, v. NORTH DAKOTA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, Respondent and Appellant. Civ. No. 870025. Supreme Court of North Dakota. July 28, 1987. Hjellum, Weiss, Nerison, Jukkala, Wright & Paulson, Jamestown, for petitioner and appellee; argued by Thomas E. Merrick. Myron E. Bothun, Asst. Atty. Gen., North Dakota State Highway Dept., Bismarck, for respondent and appellant. GIERKE, Justice. The North Dakota State Highway Commissioner appeals from a district court judgment reversing an administrative suspension of Donald L. Langer's driving privileges. We affirm. After a September 8, 1986, hearing, the Commissioner suspended Langer's driving privileges for 364 days because of a 1984 DUI conviction in South Dakota. The suspension was based upon a document asserted to be a notice of conviction in South Dakota. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether or not the document relied upon to suspend Langer's driving privileges constitutes notice of a conviction for purposes of §§ 39-06-27 and 39-06-30, N.D.C.C. We conclude that it does not and affirm the district court judgment. Section 39-06-27, N.D.C.C., provides in pertinent part: Section 39-06-30, N.D.C.C., provides in relevant part: With regard to convictions in other states, we recently held in Holen v. Hjelle, 396 N.W.2d 290, 293 (N.D.1986), that: The document relied upon by the Commissioner does not indicate in any way that it is a "final order or judgment of conviction" of an offense by any court in South Dakota or that it is a notice of such. We conclude that it does not support suspension of Langer's driving privileges. We noted in Kobilansky v. Liffrig, 358 N.W.2d 781, 787 (N.D.1984), that "[t]he loss of driving privileges is not insubstantial and may entail economic hardship and personal inconvenience." Because of the hardship and inconvenience that may be caused by the loss of one's driving privileges, we believe that there must be stricter compliance with the statutory requirement of a "conviction" in another state than was exhibited in this case to support suspension of driving privileges. The Commissioner's reliance upon Hickey v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 170 Conn. 136, 365 A.2d 403 (1976), is misplaced. In affirming a license suspension for an out-of-state traffic offense, the court in Hickey, supra, 365 A.2d at 406, said: Most of the items noted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Hickey, supra, are not present in this case. The unsigned document asserted to be a notice of conviction in South Dakota and relied upon by the Commissioner in suspending Langer's driving privileges does not bear any indication of a judgment having been rendered, a suspension, or a certification. The judgment is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, LEVINE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.