Title: Pesanti v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
Citation: 2013 ND 210
Docket Number: 
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: November 21, 2013

Pesanti v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed the district court's judgment reversing the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Dante Pesanti's driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence of alcohol. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded reasonable minds could have concluded the administrative hearing officer's finding that the arresting officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Pesanti had committed a violation is supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Pesanti's driving privileges. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the North Dakota Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from North Dakota Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . Court Description: Continuous and gradual weaving significantly more pronounced than "slight" weaving, engine revving, and the time of day an incident occurred may all contribute to the totality of the circumstances providing an officer with a reasonable and articulable suspicion for a traffic stop. IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2013 ND 210 Dante Pesanti, Petitioner and Appellee v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellant No. 20130116 Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable David W. Nelson, Judge. REVERSED. Opinion of the Court by Maring, Justice. Jeff L. Nehring, 716 2nd St. W., Williston, ND 58801, for petitioner and appellee. Douglas B. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 N. 9th St., Bismarck, ND 58501-4509, for respondent and appellant. Pesanti v. N.D. Dep't of Transp.No. 20130116 Maring, Justice. [¶1] The North Dakota Department of Transportation appeals from the district court's judgment reversing the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Dante Pesanti's driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence of alcohol. We conclude a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded the administrative hearing officer's finding that Officer Schrage had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Pesanti had committed a violation is supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, we reverse the district court's judgment and reinstate the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Pesanti's driving privileges. I [¶2] On April 7, 2012, Officer Schrage arrested Pesanti for driving under the influence and, subsequently, issued a report and notice to suspend Pesanti's driving privileges. The report and notice stated Pesanti had a blood-alcohol concentration of .23 percent. Pesanti requested and received an administrative hearing. [¶3] At the administrative hearing, Officer Schrage testified that, at approximately 1:45 a.m. on April 7, 2012, he was in the Tioga Motors parking lot when he heard the revving of an engine, as if the engine was accelerating very hard. A vehicle drove by the parking lot making the same sounds heard earlier, and Officer Schrage proceeded to follow the vehicle for approximately one and a half miles. Officer Schrage observed the vehicle, later determined to be driven by Pesanti, drift from the centerline to the fog line more than five times but never cross the centerline or fog line. Officer Schrage testified the swerving was continuous and gradual, rather than abrupt, and Pesanti appeared to have great difficulty maintaining the vehicle's position within the lane. Officer Schrage observed Pesanti fail to maintain a steady speed. Pesanti would accelerate toward the speed limit and then slow, but Pesanti never sharply or rapidly accelerated. Pesanti's speed stayed between 40 to 45 miles per hour in a 45 miles-per-hour zone. Officer Schrage observed Pesanti successfully negotiate a gentle S curve. Officer Schrage testified he did not observe Pesanti violate any traffic laws. Officer Schrage testified that based on his observations, training, and experience, he believed Pesanti may have been impaired and he initiated a traffic stop. [¶4] The administrative hearing officer specifically found that "at approximately 1:45 AM" Officer Schrage "heard a vehicle revving its engine, accelerate very hard, shift gears and again accelerate very hard[,]" and observed the vehicle "beg[in] to swerve from the center line to the fog line without crossing the lines. The vehicle behavior was continuous, back and forth, for approximately 1 1/2 miles." The administrative hearing officer concluded that Pesanti's weaving, observed by Officer Schrage, "was significantly more pronounced than the 'slight' weaving described in Salter v. [N.D. Dep't] of Transp., 505 N.W.2d 111 , 114 (N.D. 1993)[,]" and "[b]ased upon Officer Schrage's training and experience," provided Officer Schrage with a reasonable and articulable basis to stop Pesanti's vehicle. The administrative hearing officer suspended Pesanti's driving privileges for 180 days. [¶5] Pesanti appealed to the district court. The district court reversed the administrative hearing officer's decision, concluding Officer Schrage's observations were sufficient grounds to follow Pesanti and observe him further, however, Officer Schrage did not observe Pesanti violate a traffic law that would justify the stop. The Department appeals the district court's decision. [¶6] On appeal, the Department argues the district court erred in reversing the administrative hearing officer's suspension of Pesanti's driving privileges. The Department argues Officer Schrage's observations constituted a reasonable and articulable basis to stop Pesanti's vehicle. II [¶7] This Court's review of an administrative decision to suspend a driver's license is governed by the Administrative Agencies Practice Act. N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32; Schock v. ND Dep't of Transp., 2012 ND 77, ¶ 11, 815 N.W.2d 255. "The review is limited to the record before the administrative agency." Mees v. ND Dep't of Transp., 2013 ND 36, ¶ 9, 827 N.W.2d 345. We review the administrative hearing officer's decision and give deference to the administrative hearing officer's findings. Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 2004 ND 54, ¶ 10, 676 N.W.2d 799 . We do not, however, make independent findings or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Id. Rather, we "determine only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded the findings were supported by the weight of the evidence from the entire record." Id. "We defer to the hearing officer's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses." Schock, at ¶ 12. This Court must affirm an administrative hearing officer's decision unless: 1. The order is not in accordance with the law. 2. The order is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant. 3. The provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency. 4. The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing. 5. The findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 6. The conclusions of law and order of the agency are not supported by its findings of fact. 7. The findings of fact made by the agency do not sufficiently address the evidence presented to the agency by the appellant.