State v. Brenny

2014 ND 159
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 31, 2014
Docket20140013
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2014 ND 159 (State v. Brenny) 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
State v. Brenny, 2014 ND 159 (N.D. 2014).

Opinion

Filed 7/31/14 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2014 ND 159

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Jason Robert Brenny, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20140013

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Christine H. McAllister, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 East Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for plaintiff and appellee.

Chad R. McCabe, 402 East Main Avenue, Suite 100, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Brenny

[¶1] Jason Brenny appealed from a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol after the district court denied his motion to suppress the results of an Intoxilyzer test.  Brenny argues the results of the Intoxilyzer test were obtained as a result of a warrantless and unconstitutional search and seizure under the state and federal constitutions, because, as a matter of law, the criminal sanctions imposed by North Dakota’s implied consent law established his consent to the test was coerced and was not freely and voluntarily given.  We have recently rejected the argument that, as a matter of law, the criminal sanctions of the implied consent law establish consent to a blood-alcohol test was not freely and voluntarily given.   State v. Smith , 2014 ND 152, ¶¶ 1, 16-22, State v. Boehm , 2014 ND 154, ¶¶ 17-22.   See McCoy v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp. , 2014 ND 119, ¶¶ 1, 21-24.  We conclude there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court’s determination that Brenny’s consent to the Intoxilyzer test was freely and voluntarily given and the court’s decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  We affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Harns
2015 ND 45 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Tveito
2014 ND 189 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 ND 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brenny-nd-2014.