Court Opinion

ID: 9700492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:32:37.531855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:09.760147
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring in the result.
Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973), is one of those unique-fact cases. The evidence was being destroyed as the defendant stood in the police department trying to get rid of the material under his nails. I question whether the principle applicable to those facts and that kind of immediately disposable evidence applies to an unconscious driver thought to have driven under the influence. Obviously, it did not apply in State v. Hansen, 444 N.W.2d 330 (N.D.1989), to a conscious driver. We did not even cite Cupp. I would feel more comfortable if less emphasis were placed on it in this case.
I am also unsure of the extent of, or the meaning of, the majority’s reliance on Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), a civil case involving *157warrantless testing of railroad employees following train accidents. Because, in my view, neither Cupp nor Skinner applies, I concur in the result.
VANDE WALLE, C.J., concurs.