Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce C. JACOBSON, Defendant and Appellee; STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sheila Ann BARNES, Defendant and Appellee
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1996-03-15
Citations: 545 N.W.2d 152
Docket Number: Criminal Nos. 950259, 950302
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce C. JACOBSON, Defendant and Appellee, STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sheila Ann BARNES, Defendant and Appellee.
Judges: SANDSTROM, J., concurs.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 545
Pages: 152–161

Head Matter:
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce C. JACOBSON, Defendant and Appellee, STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sheila Ann BARNES, Defendant and Appellee.
Criminal Nos. 950259, 950302.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
March 15, 1996.
John E. Greenwood, State’s Attorney, Jamestown, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Michael R. Hoffman, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees.

Opinion:
NEUMANN, Justice.
Consolidated for oral argument and disposition, these cases raise the question whether the double jeopardy clause in North Dakota's state constitution and section 29-01-07 of the North Dakota Century Code require an interpretation different than the double jeopardy clause in the federal constitution for a DUI arrestee faced with an administrative license suspension and a criminal conviction. In each case, the district court ruled a criminal prosecution subsequent to an administrative suspension would place the defendants in double jeopardy in violation of federal and state constitutional law, and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. We reverse.
Defendants Jacobson and Barnes were charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Following an administrative hearing, their drivers' licenses were suspended. Criminal charges ensued, and both defendants filed pre-trial motions to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy grounds. They argued a criminal conviction and an administrative license suspension constitute multiple punishments for the same offense and thus violate, first, North Dakota statutory and constitutional law and, second, federal constitutional law.
This court's decision in State v. Zimmerman, 539 N.W.2d 49 (N.D.1995), disposes of the defendants' federal constitutional law argument. In Zimmerman, we addressed squarely the question whether, under the United States Constitution, a criminal prosecution for DUI constitutes double jeopardy when the defendant's driver's license previously had been suspended in an administrative hearing for the same DUI offense. We answered no.
Counsel for defendants also advanced a state statutory and constitutional law argument, urging this court to interpret punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis under North Dakota statutory and constitutional law different than under federal constitutional law. We decline the urging to overrule settled law. We adhere to this court's ruling in State v. Allesi, 216 N.W.2d 805 (N.D.1974) and, more recently, in City of Fargo v. Hector, 534 N.W.2d 821 (N.D.1995). Citing Allesi, we stated in Hector that "[t]he framers of our state constitution and the legislature in enacting [section 29-01-07] did not intend an interpretation different than the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution." 534 N.W.2d at 823 (citing Allesi, 216 N.W.2d at 817-18).
Reversed.
SANDSTROM, J., concurs.