Opinion ID: 1625379
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: violation of section 39-20-05(5), n.d.c.c.

Text: McNamara's last argument on appeal is that the hearing officer violated Section 39-20-05(5), N.D.C.C. The pertinent part of the statute reads: At the close of the hearing, the hearing officer shall notify the person of the hearing officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision based on the findings and conclusions and shall immediately deliver to the person a copy of the decision. After McNamara's administrative hearing, the hearing officer advised McNamara and his counsel that the hearing officer was going to take the information that I have today back to Bismarck and make a written decision tomorrow on this. In response to that announcement, McNamara's counsel simply replied, Okay. He did not object or question the hearing officer, nor did he draw the wording of Section 39-20-05(5), N.D.C.C., to the hearing officer's attention. Also, the hearing officer assured McNamara that there would be no prejudice to McNamara resulting from the hearing officer's delay in making a ruling. He said: Mr. McNamara is free to drive until after the decision is made. No problem there. After it was brought to the hearing officer's attention that the form McNamara had only allowed him to drive until the day of the hearing, the hearing officer said: I'll change that for him. Thus, no prejudice resulted from the delay in the decision. More importantly, McNamara's failure to object at the hearing precludes him from raising the issue in this Court. State v. Morstad, 493 N.W.2d at 646; Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank of Fargo, 449 N.W.2d at 808. For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment entered by the District Court for Stark County affirming the administrative suspension of McNamara's driving privileges under the provisions of Section 39-20-05(2), N.D.C.C. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and SANDSTROM, J., concur.