This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-2049, A16-0024, A16-0025 Guardian Interlock Systems, Relator,

vs. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, et al., Respondents. Filed August 15, 2016 Affirmed in part a nd vacated in part Rodenberg, Judge Ramsey County District Court File Nos. 62-CV-15-6742, 62-CV-15-6437

Minnesota Department of Public Safety Jack Y. Perry, Jason R. Asmu s, Briggs and Morgan, P.A ., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. B ilcik, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents Minnesota Depart ment of Public Safety, Ramona Dohman, Driver and Vehicle Services , and Patricia McCormack) Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N RODENBERG , Judge In these consolidated appe als, Guardian Interlock Systems (Guardian) challenges respondent Minnesota Departme nt of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS)2 Division’s decertification of Guardian as a provider of ignition-interlock devices to Minnesota drivers, and challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for temporary injunctive relief and its petition for a writ of mandamus. Because certiorari is the exclusive mechanism for review of an agency’s quasi-judicial decision, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. We therefore vacate the di strict court’s orders denying temporary injunctive relief and mandamus for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because DVS’s decertification decision was neith er arbitrary nor capricious, we affirm the agency action. FACTS This appeal concerns the Ignition Interl ock Device (IID) program established by Minn. Stat. § 171.306 (2014). An IID is “equipment that is designed to measure breath alcohol concentration and to prevent a moto r vehicle’s ignition fr om being started by a person whose breath alcohol concentration meas ures 0.02 or higher on the equipment.” Id. , subd. 1(b). Such devices are used as a condition of pr obation and/or a condition of the driving privileges of convicted drunk driver s, to ensure that a driver has no alcohol present in his or her system be fore the vehicle will start. See generally id. By statute, the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety mu st “establish performance standards and a process for certifying devices used in the ignition interlock program.” Id. , subd. 2. “The manufacturer of the device must apply annu ally for certification of the device by submitting the form prescribed by the commissioner.” Id. The establishment of performance standards and the certification process are exempt from the requirements of the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act. Id. , subd. 8.3 The commissioner has established pe rformance standards for IIDs. See generally Minn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2015 Certification Process fo r the Minnesota Ignition Interlock Device Program (2015). Among other requireme nts, the performance standards require that IIDs be equipped with cameras that “[m]ust take a photo for every event including initial starts, all rolling retests, and whenever a viol ation is recorded.” 1 Id. at 5. The obvious reason for this requi rement is to generate evid ence of who provided each breath sample. DVS also requires certified manufacturers to generate and submit to DVS a daily data file, which “must include all devi ces installed, all devices removed, and all violations reported.” Id. at 13. Certified manufacturers must also maintain a website with all participant data and photos available to DVS. Id. at 19. DVS may deny certification, decertify, suspend, revoke, or conditionally certify a manufacturer for the following: 1. Evidence of repeated device failures due to defects in design, materials, or workmanship during manufacturing.

. . . 3. Any finding that the manuf acturer is not in compliance with the provisions of th ese performance standards, regulations, or other applicable law. Id. at 20. “Manufacturers may appeal their decertification, suspension, revocation, or conditional certification within seven (7) bu siness days of receiving notification.” Id. at 20.

1 The parties refer to the images captured by the IID as “photos” or “photographs.” “Photograph” connotes an image created by ex posure of a photosens itive surface to light. The American Heritage Dictiona ry of the English Language 1329 (5 thed. 2011). The images involved here are not, strictly speaking, photographs. Relying on the record, we refer to the images captured by an IID as “photos,” despite no true “photography” being involved in the cap ture of images.4 Guardian, a manufacturer, was certified to provide IIDs to program participants from April 29, 2011 until DVS decertified it by letter dated October 15, 2015. The primary concern of DVS about Guardian’s IID s was the absence of photos from a number of tests done on Guardian’s devices. As early as 2013, DVS notified Guardian that photos were missing for some IID participants using Guardian ’s devices. On June 3, 2015, following multiple exchanges of communication with Guardian on th is issue, and with Guardian’s certification set to expire on June 30, 2015, DVS conditionally certified Guardian through July 31, 20 15. The conditional-certification letter stated that “DVS will continue to monitor Guardian’s proble m with downloading ph otos” and that “DVS expects that the percentage of data missing photos will drop significantly to below 10 percent by July 15, 2015.” DVS expressed c oncern that “[b]etween March 23, 2015 and May 25, 2015, an average of 38 percent of the da ta Guardian sent in its daily data file was missing photos.” On July 17, 2015, and because of cont inuing problems with “missing photos,” DVS suspended Guardian “from performing ne w installs for 90 days” and stated the agency expectation that “the percentage of data missing photos will drop to below 10 percent by October 15, 2015.” On October 15, 2015, DVS decertified Guardian because of continued photo problems and Guardian’s installation of two devi ces during the period of its suspension. Guardian appealed, and DVS denied the appeal by order dated October 29, 2015. Guardian appealed (A15-2 049) the agency decision to this court by writ of certiorari.5 Guardian also petitioned the district court for a writ of mandamus. See Guardian Interlock Sys. v. Minn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , No. 62-CV-15-6437. The district court denied the petition for mandamus, reasoning that Guardian ha d not established the failure of DVS to perform a duty clearly required by law. Guardian appealed (A16-0025) the district court’s order denying mandamus relief. Guardian also sued DV S in a declaratory-judgment action in district court. In that action, Guardian moved the district c ourt for temporary injunctive relief. See Guardian Interlock Sys. v. Minn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , No. 62-CV-15-6742. The district court denied the temporary-injunction motion, reas oning that the balance of harms slightly favored DVS, that Guardian had not demons trated a high likelihood of success on the merits, and that public-policy considerations weighed strongly agai nst granting injunctive relief. Guardian appealed (A16 -0024) the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. On January 21, 2016, we cons olidated the three appeals. Both partie s then moved this court to supplement the administrative re cord. Guardian sought to supplement the record with data from its program-required website. DVS sought to supplement the record with two affidavits. By order date d June 8, 2016, we gr anted both parties’ motions. D E C I S I O N Guardian challenges DVS’s decertificatio n decision by certiorari petition, and appeals the district court’s separate denials of mandamus and temporary injunctive relief. We first consider the district court’s subjec t-matter jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to decertify.6 I. District Court Orders When we consolidated the three appeals, we ordered the parties to brief the issue of the district court’s subject-matter jurisdicti on, and particularly whether certiorari is the exclusive method of review. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo. Nelson v. Schlener , 859 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Minn. 2015). “[U]nless otherwise provided by statute, a petition for a writ of certiorari is the exclusive procedure for reviewing an administrative agency’s quasi-judicial decision.” Lam v. City of St. Paul , 714 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn. App. 2006 ). This exclusivity derive s from separation-of-powers considerations and “is required to provide appropriate deference and to minimize the judicial intrusion into administrative decision-making.” Tischer v. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth . of Cambridge , 693 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Min n. 2005). Quasi-judicial decision-making involves: “(1) investigati on into a disputed cl aim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application of those fact s to a prescribed standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim.” Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Metro. Council , 587 N.W.2d 838, 842 (Minn. 1999). Here, Guardian’s challenges to the DVS decertification order meet all three criteria. First, in decertifying Guardian, DVS considered evidentiary facts including the daily data files that Guardian submitted and ev idence that Guardian installed two devices after the July 17, 2015 suspension letter prohibiting it from doing so. Second, DVS applied those facts to the IID program certification standard s and the standards set forth in its conditional-certification and suspension letters to Guardian. Third, DVS’s decision7 was binding because DVS is responsi ble for the IID pr ogram and certifying manufacturers of IID devices. See Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd . 2. Once DVS decertified Guardian, the company was no longer eligible to install devices and was required to remove any Guardian devices from program participants’ vehicles. Id. DVS’s decision was therefore a quasi-judicial decision, subject to review only by writ of certiorari to this

court. Guardian argues that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction concerning its declaratory-judgment action and its petitio n for writ of mandamus because Guardian challenged the constitutionality of DVS’s enforcement of the IID program requirements. Guardian cites cases concerni ng constitutional challenges to the implied-consent law in support of its position, which are distinguishable from this case. See Nordvick v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety , 610 N.W.2d 659, 662 (M inn. App. 2000) (involving a challenge to the constitutionality of the implied-consent laws); Ruzic v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety , 455 N.W.2d 89, 90-91 (Minn. App. 1990) (invol ving a void-for-vagueness challenge to the implied-consent laws). First, the cases that Guardian cites concern direct challenges to the constitutionality of the implied-consent laws. Here, Guardian challenges DVS’s actual enforcement of the IID program require ments, but Guardian does not challenge the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 171.306 or DVS’s authority to enac t the IID program requirements. Second, cases concerning th e implied-consent laws are distinguishable from this case because Minn. St at. § 169A.53, subd. 2(a) (2014) expr essly provides for district-court review of agency action under Minnesota’s implied-consent laws. There is no statute providing for judicial review of decisions under Minn. St at. § 171.306 by any8 method other than by writ of certiorari. Moreover, constitutional ch allenges can be made in certiorari appeals. See, e.g. , In re Minn. Dep’t of Nat. Res. Special Permit No. 16868 , 867 N.W.2d 522, 532-23 (Minn. App. 2 015) (considering th e void-for-vagueness doctrine on certiorari review), review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 2015). Because writ of certiorari is the ex clusive method of reviewing DVS’s quasi-judicial decertification decision, the dist rict court lacked subj ect-matter jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to decertify. And we are likewise without subject-matter jurisdiction to review the agency decision othe r than by certiorari. See Tipka v. Lincoln Int’l Charter Sch. , 864 N.W.2d 371, 373 (Minn. App. 2015) (“The writ of certiorari is a means of judicial review of an administrativ e body’s quasi-judicial decision when there is no other legal remedy or adequate means of re view.”). We therefore vacate the district court’s orders denying mandamus and temporary injunctive relief as having been issued without subject-ma tter jurisdiction.
II. DVS’s Decertification Decision Guardian argues in its certiorari appeal that DVS acted ar bitrarily and capriciously in decertifying Guardian . “An agency’s quasi-judicial de terminations will be upheld unless they are unconstitutional, outside the agen cy’s jurisdiction, procedurally defective, based on an erroneous legal theory, unsupported by substantia l evidence, or arbitrary and capricious.” Cole v. Metro. Council HRA , 686 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). “An agency’s conclusions are not arb itrary and capricious so long as there is a rational connection between th e facts found and the choice made.” In re9 Review of 2005 A nnual Automatic Adjustment of Charges , 768 N.W.2d 112, 120 (Minn. 2009) (quotation and c itations omitted). The substantial evidence test requires a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence relied upo n by the agency in view of the entire record as submitted. If an administrative agency engages in reasoned decisionmak ing, the court will affirm, even though it may have reached a different conc lusion had it been the factfinder. Cable Commc’ns Bd. v. Nor-west Cable Commc’ns P’ship , 356 N.W.2d 658, 668-69 (Minn. 1984) (quotations and citations omitted). DVS denied Guardian’s appeal and dece rtified Guardian on October 29, 2015, concluding that “the [October 15, 2015] dece rtification letter contains specific reasons for the denial, including recorded instances of Guardian violating its suspension and the device not meeting cited Program standa rds.” DVS found as facts that the conditional-certification letter “requires that the number of missing photos drops below 10 percent of data received by DVS in the daily data file,” that Guardian was “suspended from performing new installs,” and that it viol ated this condition. DVS also found that the original October 15, 2015 letter “decertif ied [Guardian] due to Guardian’s direct violations of its July 17, 2015 suspension as well as not meeting the October 15, 2015 deadline to correctthe missing photos issue.” The precise issues on appeal are whethe r either or both of DVS’s two stated decertification grounds amount to arbitrary and capricious agency action. Those grounds are: (1) Guardian’s daily data files were missing more than 10% of the required photos, and (2) Guardian installed two new IIDs after the July 17, 2015 suspension.10 A. The 10% standard as app lied to the daily data files Guardian strenuously argues that DVS arb itrarily and capricious ly limited the pool of data that it reviewed in making the dece rtification decision to the daily data files, rather than the entire universe of data available on Gu ardian’s program-required website. Both parties agree that, although DVS’s IID program require ments could be construed to require strict compliance with the photo re quirements, DVS in practice tolerates some missing photos. DVS made an agency de termination that missing photos must not exceed 10% of the photos in the daily data file. It applied that stan dard when it decertified Guardian. By letter of June 3, 2015, DVS conditio nally certified Guardian and mandated compliance with th e 10% standard: DVS will continue to monito r Guardian’s problem with downloading photos. Betwee n March 23, 2015 and May 25, 2015, an average of 38 percent of the dat a Guardian sent in its daily data file was missing photos . This is unacceptable. DVS expects that the percentage of data missing photos will drop significantly to below 10 percent by July 15, 2015. (Emphasis added.) DVS’s July 17, 2015 suspen sion letter to Guardian reiterated the 10% standard: “DVS expects that the percentage of data missing photos will drop to below 10 percent by October 15, 2015.” (Emphasis added .) Guardian argues that the July 17 letter demonstrates that DVS’s 10% standard applied to all data, and not to only the daily data files. Guardian argues that it was arbitrary and capricious fo r DVS, in its enforcement of the 10% standard, to apply that standard to only the daily data files.11 The June, July, and October letters clearly indicate that DVS was consistently considering the percentage of mi ssing photos in the daily data f iles. It identified the daily data file as the set of datato which the 10% measure woul d be applied in determining whether Guardian was exceeding the tolerance for missing photos. The original June 3, 2015 conditional-certification lett er fairly notified Guardian of this. Reading the June 3, 2015 letter as a whole, it is clear that DVS expected Guardian to bring its 38% missing photo rate—which referred to the daily data files—to below 10% by July 15, 2015. We therefore consider whether DVS’s selection of that subset of data was arbitrary and capricious. To determine whether applying the 10% standard to the daily data files was arbitrary and capricious, we consider th e purposes of the IID program’s photo requirement. The statute that establishes th e IID program criminaliz es “tamper[ing] with, circumvent[ing], or bypass[ing]” an IID. Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 6(b). As part of DVS’s IID program certification standards, a ph oto of the person wh ose breath is being sampled is necessary to prevent a circumventi on, i.e., “an unauthorized attempt to operate the vehicle or obstruct the camera.” Minn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2015 Certification Process for the Minnesota Ign ition Interlock Device Program 2. In denying Guardian’s administrative appeal, DVS conc luded that “circumvention viol ations cannot be enforced without photographi c evidence.” It is true that Guardian’s position might al so be reasonable, i.e., applying the 10% standard to the entire set of data and phot os on Guardian’s webs ite. But the question before us is whether the subsetof data selected by DVS wa s arbitrary and capricious, and12 not whether another subset of data or a di fferent measurement of missing-photo tolerance would have been permissible or even better. DVS reasonabl y limited applic ation of the standard to photos of program participants reported in the daily data files, which by requirement of the IID program in cluded all reported violations. The legislature has specifically authoriz ed DVS to establish and administer standards for the IID program. Minn. Stat. § 171.306. Th e availability of photographic evidence of who provided each failed IID sample is important to the effectiveness of the IID program. DVS’s decertific ation and denial of Guardian ’s appeal were rationally connected to the underl ying purposes of the photo requir ement and the facts available in the administrative record. See Review of 2005 Annual Automatic Adjustment of Charges , 768 N.W.2d at 120. DVS’s application of th e 10% standard to the daily data files was not arbitrary and capricious. The record supports (and Guar dian does not significantly dispute) that Guardian’s daily data files continued to include viola tions without accompanying photos in excess of the 10% standard. The record therefore supports the ag ency decision decertifying Guardian on this basis.
B. Guardian’s installation of two new de vices during the suspension period Although the missing-photos issue is a suffi cient basis for DVS to have decertified Guardian, we address Guardian’s challenge to DVS’s alternativ e basis for decertification: that Guardian installed two new devices duri ng the suspension period. Guardian argues that this decertification ground is without substantial support in the administrative record and does not satisfy the cited program st andards for decertification.13 DVS advised Guardian by letter dated July 17, 2015 that Guardian was suspended “from performing new installs fo r 90 days.” Guardian does not challenge the authority of DVS to impose this condition. When DVS decertified Guardian, it explained that it “discovered that Guardian installed two new devices during the susp ension period,” and that Guardian was therefore decertified based, in part, for “violation of the July 17, 2015 suspension letter.” Guardian admits that the first installati on happened. It argues that, because that device was later removed, a single, remediedviolation is not a sufficient basis for decertification. And Guardian specifically argues that the se cond of these installations was never completed. The service center be gan the installation, but it stopped short of completion and sent the custom er elsewhere to get a non-Gu ardian IID installed in his vehicle. We consider first the completed insta llation that Guardian concedes. DVS’s July 17, 2015 suspensi on letter allowed Guardian to con tinue its conditional certification, albeit subject to an additional requirement: “Guardian [was] suspended from performing new installs for 90 days.” By performin g the installation on September 11, 2015, Guardian violated the terms of its conditional certification. Guardian argues that this isolated violation is insufficient to support decertification, because it was not a material violation, citing Moskovitz v. City of St. Paul , 218 Minn. 543, 551- 552, 16 N.W.2d 745, 749-50 (1944). Guardian’s reliance on Moskovitzis misplaced. In Moskovitz , the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that “m inor infractions of [] regulations unrelated to a licensee’s business would not constitute ‘misconduct’ authorizing the revocation of his14 license.” Id. at 551, 16 N.W.2d at 749 (emphasis added). Here, Guardian’s violation was directly related to the subject of the conditio nal certification. Guardian installed an IID despite the July 17, 2015 letter suspending it from doing so. Guardian’s installation of an IID during the suspension term violated a condition of their IID program certification, and therefore provided a separa te, independent, and sufficient basis for DVS to decertify Guardian. DVS’s decision to decertify Guardian based on its installation of a new IID was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Because the record supports this basis for decertification based on violation of the conditional certification, we do not separately address the second and aborted installation. In sum, the record supports two separate and permissible bases for decertification. DVS’s selection of a 10% tolerance of missi ng photos in the daily data file was not arbitrary or capricious, and Gu ardian failed to co mply with the missi ng-photo tolerance set by DVS and communicated to Guardian. As a separate basis for decertification, Guardian installed at least one IID after its continued cert ification had been expressly conditioned on Guardian insta lling no further devices. DVS’s decertification was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Affirmed in part and vacated in part.