No. 20020141Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Decided November 5, 2002
Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
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.
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’tof 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