DUI

In North Dakota, there are two separate cases in a driving under the influence (DUI) case. There is an administrative proceeding in which the North Dakota Department of Transportation attempts to suspend your North Dakota driver license or your privileges to drive in North Dakota. The second case is the criminal case in which you face the possibility of jail time, a fine, and other penalties.

The administrative proceeding is started when a person is served a Report and Notice under Chapter 39-20. The person must request an administrative hearing within 10 days after being served the Report and Notice under Chapter 39-20. If this is not done, even if the motorist has a meritorious defense, the motorist has lost their license! There are no exceptions to this! The administrative proceeding is separate and distinct from the criminal case. Thus, even if the criminal case is ultimately dismissed, if you did not request an administrative hearing within 10 days, your license or privileges to drive will be suspended.

If you were served a Report and Notice under Chapter 39-20, you should contact Mr. Edinger or another attorney as soon as possible.

In North Dakota, a DUI case is either a misdemeanor or a felony. This depends on whether one has any prior DUI convictions and whether the motorist caused damage to property or caused injury or death to a person. If a person has a prior DUI conviction, there is mandatory jail time that the court must impose if there is a conviction. For a second DUI conviction within five years, there is a mandatory minimum 5 days in jail. For a third DUI conviction within 5 years, there is a mandatory minimum 60 days in jail. For a fourth DUI conviction in seven years, there is a mandatory minimum of 180 days in jail. There are also substantial fines and other consequences upon a DUI conviction.

If you were charged with a DUI in North Dakota, you should contact Mr. Edinger or another attorney as soon as possible.

DUI Cases

Here, is a small sample of DUI cases that Mr. Edinger has successfully defended. Each case is different and whether one has a meritorious defense depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

State of North Dakota v. R.O.
Defendant was charged with DUI after she drove her vehicle into a business. Her BAC was .21. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued that prior to driving, the defendant had not been drinking and she was not under the influence. The district court judge agreed and after the state had rested, granted a judgment of acquittal.

City of Fargo v. J.J.
Defendant was charged with DUI. His BAC was .15. After his arrest, the defendant bailed out almost immediately. Thereupon, he was stopped again by a different Fargo police officer. The second police officer had determined the defendant was fine to drive and sent him home. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the Intoxilyzer machine had to be inaccurate because if the defendant was intoxicated, he would have been arrested a second time for a DUI. The jury agreed and found the defendant not guilty.

State of North Dakota v. D.H.
Defendant was charged with DUI, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Mr. Edinger believed the state trooper had illegally frisked the defendant because he did not have reasonable articulate suspicion to believe defendant was armed and dangerous. Subsequently, Mr. Edinger filed a motion to suppress, arguing the frisk and pat down was illegal. Prior to the motion hearing, the State agreed with Mr. Edinger and dismissed all three charges!

State v. J.T.
Defendant was charged with DUI and facing a mandatory minimum 60 days in jail, if convicted. Mr. Edinger filed a motion to suppress, arguing the stop of Defendant's vehicle was illegal because the officer did not witness any traffic violation. The officer had stopped the defendant solely because the defendant did not slow down at the yield sign. There was no traffic coming so the defendant proceeded through the intersection at the maximum speed allowed. The district court judge ruled the stop was illegal. Subsequently, the state dismissed the charge due to lack of evidence.

State v. M.M.
Defendant was charged with DUI and facing a mandatory minimum of 60 days in jail, if convicted. Defendant's BAC was .23. During the early morning hours, Defendant was leaving the Amtrak station parking lot in Fargo. There was no traffic on the street. From 300 feet away, the police officer witnessed the defendant fail to signal his turn out of the parking lot. The officer followed the defendant for several blocks and did not observe any illegal driving or erratic driving. According to the Fargo City ordinance, a turn signal is only required if "a vehicle is affected by such movement." Mr. Edinger successfully argued the stop was illegal because no traffic was affected by the defendant's failure to use his turn signal. The officer was 300 feet away and since the streets were barren, the defendant did not have to use his signal. The district court judge agreed and ruled the stop was illegal. Subsequently, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

State v. R.M.
Defendant was charged with DUI and facing a mandatory minimum 180 days in jail, if convicted. Defendant's BAC was .14. The trooper had stopped the defendant for having a cracked taillight. At the administrative hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the stop was illegal because the taillight was still working properly and the state statute does not require the taillight to be in pristine condition. The hearing officer agreed and the defendant kept his driver's license. Based on the administrative hearing, the State reduced the charge to reckless driving with no jail time.

State v. E.N.
Defendant was charged with DUI, having a BAC of .10. The trooper stopped the defendant for having a cracked taillight. At the motion to suppress the hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the stop was illegal because the taillight was still working properly and the state statute does not require the taillight to be in pristine condition. The district court judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress. Subsequently, the state dismissed the charge due to lack of evidence.

City of West Fargo v. B.N.
Defendant was charged with actual physical control of a vehicle and minor in possession of alcohol. Defendant's BAC was .15. At the administrative hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the defendant was illegally seized. The hearing officer agreed and the defendant retained his driver license. Subsequently, Mr. Edinger wrote a letter to the prosecutor, enclosing a copy of the hearing officer's decision and requested that she dismiss the charges. Thereafter, the prosecutor dismissed both charges without the necessity of a motion hearing.

The aforementioned cases are just a small sample of cases in which Mr. Edinger has had success defending DUI clients in the last twelve years. Additionally, Mr. Edinger has had dozens of DUI cases reduced to the charge of reckless driving. Moreover, he has also successfully defended dozens of driving under suspension cases by getting the charge reduced to the non-criminal charge of no valid license in possession.