Traffic Law and Enforcement
What the exam tests
Traffic Law and Enforcement covers NDCC Title 39: licensing, rules of the road, DUI, implied consent, and crash reporting. The exam favors applied questions about what the violation is, whether the stop is lawful, and what happens after a refusal.
Core rules
- A traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion of a violation or probable cause. The stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment; its scope must match the reason for the stop.
- DUI under NDCC 39-08-01 requires operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired, with a BAC of 0.08% or more (0.02% for drivers under 21; 0.04% for commercial drivers).
- Actual physical control is broader than driving. A parked car with the engine running and the driver in the seat can qualify.
- Implied consent (NDCC 39-20-01): a person who operates a vehicle on a highway consents to a chemical test when arrested for DUI. Refusal triggers administrative license consequences and can be used in the criminal case.
- After Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), breath tests may be compelled incident to a lawful DUI arrest; blood tests generally require a warrant or valid consent. ND officers commonly obtain a telephonic warrant.
- Crash reports go to the ND Department of Transportation. Serious-injury and fatal crashes require thorough scene documentation and reconstruction.
Worked example
An officer stops a car for 47 in a 30. The driver has bloodshot eyes and admits drinking. The officer conducts SFSTs, arrests for DUI, reads the implied-consent advisory, and the driver refuses breath. The refusal is documented; the officer seeks a search warrant for a blood draw based on probable cause: driving, odor, admissions, and SFST clues. The refusal itself is not a physical compulsion to submit to blood; a warrant supplies the authority.
Traps
- Equating refusal with guilt without documenting the refusal and the advisory.
- Ordering a blood draw after refusal without a warrant.
- Missing the under-21 0.02 standard.
- Stopping a vehicle on a hunch and then finding a violation; courts examine the stop's basis, not the outcome.