Johnson v. N.D. Department of Transportation

Annotate this Case

Johnson v. N.D. Department of Transportation, 2002 ND 167, 655 N.W.2d 84

Filed Nov. 5, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2002 ND 167

Randy Allen Johnson, Petitioner and Appellant
v.
North Dakota Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20020141

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Thomas A. Dickson, Timothy Q. Purdon and Justin D. Roness (argued), Dickson & Purdon, 107 West Main Avenue, Suite 150, P.O. Box 1896, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-1896, for petitioner and appellant.
Andrew Moraghan, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, 500 North Ninth Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for respondent and appellee.

Johnson v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation
No. 20020141

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Johnson appeals the trial court's judgment affirming the one-year suspension of his driving privileges. He alleges that his right to an independent blood test under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-02 was violated by law enforcement. When reviewing appeals from trial court judgments involving administrative license suspensions, this Court's review is limited to the record before the agency. See Luebke v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 1998 ND 110, ¶ 8, 579 N.W.2d 189. When determining whether an agency's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, this Court will not make independent findings of fact or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. See Boehler v. Backes, 461 N.W.2d 103, 104 (N.D. 1990). Instead, the Court will determine only "whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have determined that the facts or conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence." Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 849 (N.D. 1989). We conclude the administrative hearing officer's finding that Johnson did not clearly and unambiguously request an independent blood test is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

[¶2] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.