Court Opinion

ID: 9735316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:08:53.569494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:57.043013
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the command of NDCC § 39-20-03.1 that the officer “shall immediately issue” a temporary operator’s *718permit to the driver, whether a jurisdictional or due process requirement, does not require a separate showing of harm or prejudice, I dissent.
To establish jurisdiction of the agency, the basic mandatory provisions of the statute conferring jurisdiction must be met. Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D.1994); Schwind v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 462 N.W.2d 147, 150 (N.D.1990). We have held that some of the provisions of section 39-20-03.1 are basic and mandatory, and therefore jurisdictional. In Bosch, we held that the officer’s failure to forward the results of all blood tests performed on the driver in violation of NDCC § 39-20-03.1(3) deprived the agency of authority to suspend the driver’s license. See also Schwind, supra at 151 [“The prerequisite for the exercise of the Director’s jurisdiction is the certified written report and test records of either breath, blood, saliva, or urine.”]. In contrast, we held in Schwind that the officer’s failure to forward the driver’s license to the agency in violation of NDCC § 39-20-03.1(3) did not deprive the agency of jurisdiction. We explained that the transmittal of the blood-alcohol test records, not the driver’s license, was the basic and mandatory provision of section 39-20-03.1(3). Therefore, while failure to forward the blood-alcohol test records would deprive the agency of jurisdiction, failure to forward the driver’s license would not.
The provision in this case, that the officer shall immediately issue a temporary permit, is more akin to the transmittal of blood-alcohol test results than to the transmittal of the driver’s license. First, in Schwind, we relied on the fact that the statute allowed for the possibility that the officer may not be able to take possession of or forward the driver’s license. Schwind, supra at 150-51. Therefore, we inferred that the legislature would not have allowed for the officer’s failure to forward the driver’s license if that had been a prerequisite for the agency’s exercise of its jurisdiction. Here, however, there is no legislative allowance for the possibility that the officer may not issue immediately a temporary permit to a driver with a valid license. Indeed, the statute expressly states that the temporary operator’s permit serves as notice to the driver of intent to revoke, suspend, or deny driving privileges.1 As the blood-alcohol test results are a prerequisite for exercise of the agency’s jurisdiction, so is notice in the form of the immediate issuance of the temporary permit.
Second, the provision in this case is not solely for the benefit of the public. Although the primary purpose of NDCC ch. 39-20 is “to get the drinking driver off the highways,” Minutes of the Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting on S.B. 2373 (Jan. 31, 1983), the legislature was also concerned that the law not be “slanted too much toward the [agency’s] convenience.” Report of the House Judiciary Committee on S.B. 2373 (March 15, 1983). In Schwind, we concluded that to hold that the officer’s failure to forward the driver’s license deprived the agency of jurisdiction would defeat the legislature’s intent to protect the public from drunk drivers. Schwind, supra at 150. We did not find any legislative intent in that particular provision to benefit the driver. However, in Bosch, we implicitly found a legislative intent to protect procedurally the driver in the statutory requirement that the officer forward all blood-alcohol test records to the agency by ensuring that a hearing officer, not a law enforcement officer, would determine the admissibility and weight of the test results. That dual purpose, to protect the public generally from drunk drivers and to safeguard procedurally the driver’s rights, led us to conclude that the provision in Bosch was basic and mandatory, unlike the provision in Schwind. Here, while the general purpose of the statute is to protect the public, see Schwind, supra at 150, *719the more specific purpose of the provision at hand is to provide notice to the driver that administrative proceedings against her are beginning. Thus, the provision is basic and mandatory, and therefore jurisdictional.
Although I believe that the provision at issue is jurisdictional, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, even under the majority’s analysis I would affirm on the basis that the driver need not show harm or prejudice separate from a violation of the statute. The majority is correct, of course, in arguing that the legislature wanted to get drunk drivers off the roads quickly, but the important thing is that unlike the provision in Schwind, the provision here also protects the rights of the driver. The legislative command of “immediately” applies to the driver’s rights as well. By saying that the officer “shall immediately issue” a temporary permit which serves as notice to the driver, the legislature has made a judgment that anything less than immediate issuance and notice is prejudicial to the driver. Because the legislature has made the judgment that immediate issuance, not issuance within a reasonable time (or some other language), is required, it is not up to us to soften that requirement effectively to mean, “Immediately, unless the driver cannot show positively any harm or prejudice from a delay, in which ease any time is fine.” Even ignoring the legislative intent to protect procedurally the driver, I would enforce the immediacy requirement of the statute to ensure diligent conduct of law enforcement and to avoid “systemic disregard of law.” Madison v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243, 246 (N.D.1993).
Lastly, I worry that the majority abuses the “absurd result” analysis of Schwind. In Schwind, we concluded that it would be an absurd result if violation of a provision which was not intended to safeguard the driver’s rights, only to protect the public, resulted in a drunk driver retaining his driving privileges. Certainly we did not intend that Schwind’s analysis be stretched to hold that finding in favor of the driver on the basis of violation of a statutory provision is always an absurd result because the legislature intended to protect public safety.
I would affirm the district court’s judgment reversing the hearing officer’s decision.

. Section 39-20-03.1(1) says:
"The law enforcement officer shall immediately take possession of the person’s operator's license if it is then available and shall immediately issue to that person a temporary operator's permit if the person then has valid operating privileges, extending driving privileges for the next twenty-five days, or until earlier terminated by the decision of a hearing officer under section 39-20-05. The law enforcement officer shall sign and note the date on the temporary operator’s permit. The temporary operator's permit serves as the director’s official notification to the person of the director’s intent to revoke, suspend, or deny driving privileges in this state." (Emphasis added.)