Court Opinion

ID: 9663419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:38:25.301048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:49.706747
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
While I agree with most of the rationale and with the result of the majority opinion, I believe the majority leans too heavily on the Moser case to support its conclusion. In Moser there was no suggestion of another cause for the accident which occurred. In the instant case there is an obvious suggestion of another cause for the accident which occurred — the possible negligence of the pedestrian. Notwithstanding this distinction, I agree that the police officer here had probable cause to believe there had been a violation of NDCC § 39-08-01.
Zietz argues that we cannot take judicial notice of the rate of elimination of alcohol from the blood system and because there was no such evidence there was no probable cause to believe that Zietz was under the influence when he drove his vehicle some thirty minutes earlier. Even if there were logic to this argument, I accept the *576wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” I find myself unable to disregard experience and common sense which tell me that one who has not drunk for sixty minutes or so, but smells of alcohol, has slurred speech, and fails a field sobriety test, and who was admittedly driving some thirty minutes earlier, could reasonably be held to have been driving while under the influence. Besides, logic and experience are not mutually exclusive. An argument that pits the one against the other must fail for that reason alone.