 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transportation3/23/2004
e twenty-minute waiting period had been observed by the time the officer administered the Intoxilyzer test.
[ ] Johnson argues there was no testimony provided to establish that he was continuously observed by the officer from the point of administration of the S-D2 test until the point of the Intoxilyzer test. Although there was no testimony that the officer constantly observed Johnson, observation is not the exclusive method of ascertaining whether the twenty-minute requirement has been met. State v. Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d 621, 624 (N.D. 1995). Furthermore, a fact-finder can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Nelson v. Director, N.D. Department of Transportation, 1997 ND 81, 11, 562 N.W.2d 562. It is not unreasonable for a fact-finder to infer that a person who had been handcuffed behind his back and had remained in police custody would have had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke during that time.
IV.
[ ] Because the testimony at the hearing supports the hearing officer's finding that the twenty-minute waiting period had been observed before the officer administered the Intoxilyzer test, we reverse the district court's decision and reinstate the hearing officer's decision to suspend Aaron Johnson's driving privileges for ninety-one days.
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|