Keltner v. Levi

2014 ND 121
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 24, 2014
Docket20130380
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Keltner v. Levi, 2014 ND 121 (N.D. 2014).

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

McCoy v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
2014 ND 119 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
Daniels v. Ziegler
2013 ND 157 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 ND 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keltner-v-levi-nd-2014.