Keltner v. Levi
This text of 2014 ND 121 (Keltner v. Levi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Filed 6/24/14 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2014 ND 121
Burt Justin Keltner, Appellant
v.
Grant Levi, Director of the North
Dakota Department of Transportation, Appellee
No. 20130380
Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable William A. Herauf, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Thomas F. Murtha IV, 135 Sims, Suite 217, P.O. Box 1111, Dickinson, ND 58602-1111, for appellant.
Douglas B. Anderson, Office of Attorney General, 500 North 9th Street, Bismarck, ND 58501-4509, for appellee.
Keltner v. Levi
[¶1] Burt Justin Keltner appeals a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer’s decision suspending Keltner’s driving privileges. On appeal, Keltner argues the breath test taken by law enforcement was a warrantless search, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied. We summarily affirm the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See McCoy v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp. , 2014 ND 119, ¶¶ 21, 23 (holding implied consent analysis did not apply where actual consent was given, and consent was not coerced where an officer informed a driver that an administrative penalty applied to refusing the test). Keltner also argues the Department lacked the authority to suspend his driving privileges because the certified report failed to indicate he was tested for alcohol concentration under N.D.C.C. ch. 39-20. Because Keltner failed to raise this argument in his specification of error to the district court, we decline to address the issue and summarily affirm the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See Daniels v. Ziegler , 2013 ND 157, ¶ 7, 835 N.W.2d 852 (holding a specification of error must identify the matters at issue with sufficient specificity in order to preserve those issues for appeal).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 ND 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keltner-v-levi-nd-2014.