Court Opinion

ID: 9800517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:21:24.598927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:56.887385
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 28] I agree with the majority decision except Parts V and VI regarding Boehm’s arguments that his consent to chemical testing was coerced and involuntary and that the blood test was not reasonably administered. Both claims were made in the district court but not decided. Majority opinion at ¶¶ 16 and 22. We are remanding for the district court to adjudicate those claims. Id. at ¶¶ 21 and 24. Therefore, this Court’s substantive discussion of those claims is dicta and is improperly advisory. See State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75, ¶ 16, 815 N.W.2d 229 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19-21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially).
[¶ 29] DANIEL J. CROTHERS
SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 30] I understand this opinion to be consistent with the Court’s opinion in State v. Smith, 2014 ND 152. ‘While the volun-tariness of consent is decided from the totality of the circumstances, submitting to a blood alcohol test is not rendered involuntary merely by an officer fairly giving the implied consent advisory including the criminal penalty for refusing to take the test.” Id. at ¶ 24 (Sandstrom, J., concurring specially).
[¶ 31] DALE V. SANDSTROM