Court Opinion

ID: 9737813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:34:53.543641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:01.492641
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. The issue appears to me to be the construction of the State Toxicologist’s memo and if, by that memo, the State Toxicologist permits the use of povidone iodine whether or not it is aqueous or whether, by definition, povidone iodine is a substance which does not contain alcohol. In construing the memo I would apply the rules of construction that apply to the interpretation of statutes, including the rule, that words are to be understood in their ordinary sense unless a contrary intention plainly appears (section 1-02-02, NDCC) and the rule that words and phrases must be construed according to the context and *638rules of grammar and the approved usage of the language (section 1-02-03, NDCC).
In applying those rules to the memo I arrive at the same conclusion as that of the majority opinion: povidone iodine may be used as a skin disinfectant for the purpose of the test for blood alcohol if the povidone iodine is an aqueous solution thereof, i.e., if it does not contain alcohol. After reaching that conclusion I also agree that the evidence in this case does not indicate whether or not an aqueous solution of povidone iodine was used.
Without further evidence concerning the nature of the skin disinfectant used and whether, if it was not an aqueous solution, it could have affected the scientific accuracy of the test, I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion.