NORTH DAKOTA — A Grand Forks prosecutor argued in front of the North Dakota Supreme Court Monday, Sept. 8, that a district judge’s decision to allow suppression of DUI test results was the wrong choice. She asked the Supreme Court to reverse it, so the evidence can be used at trial.

Travis Dean Bell, 44, of Fordville, is charged with Class A felony criminal vehicular homicide and Class C felony criminal vehicular injury. The Class A felony charge has a maximum 20-year sentence.

Bell was charged with these crimes following a June 2024 Grand Forks County crash that

took the life of 6-year-old Katarina Louthain

and seriously injured her mother, Nicole Louthain.

The initial decision to suppress evidence in the case was

made by Judge Theodore Sandberg in March,

a couple of weeks after

the defense — which filed the motion to suppress — and prosecution gave arguments during a hearing.

Key issues argued at the time by Mark Friese, Bell’s attorney, were that since Bell was not charged with driving under the influence (DUI), he was not subject to the state’s implied consent law and, therefore, the arresting officer was wrong to tell him he could be charged with another crime if he refused the test.

Friese argued that by saying this, the officer unlawfully coerced Bell into taking the test, when the officer should have instead requested a warrant for it, as is standard in suspected DUIs that result in injury or death.

Rachel Egstad, an assistant Grand Forks County state’s attorney, is the prosecutor in Bell’s case and filed the Supreme Court appeal following Sandberg’s decision. In her argument Monday, Egstad said when an officer arrives on scene, they work their investigation “from the ground up.”

The arresting officer — North Dakota Highway Patrol Trooper Austin Erickson — was operating with the information he had, and didn’t assume there had been an injury or death, so he carried out a standard DUI arrest and gave the standard implied consent advisory.

“He doesn’t know the whole story; he has no idea what happened,” Egstad said.

She said giving the advisory, and warning of the potential consequences for failing to take a DUI test in spite of state law that requires it of motorists, is not itself coercion.

Egstad referred to Sandberg’s analysis, which she said implied giving the advisory twice was coercive; however, she said the advisory was repeated only because Bell asked for it to be. He was confused about the difference between the preliminary breath test and the one he was asked to do afterward, once he arrived at the jail, Egstad said.

“I don’t know how Mr. Bell can complain about being coerced,” she said.

Drew Hushka — representing Bell in the Supreme Court appeal — argued on Monday that though it’s not wrong to provide an advisory, it’s wrong to provide one inaccurately. He said the implied consent law only applies to DUIs, not criminal vehicular injury or homicide.

However, Egstad and Hushka agreed that driving under the influence is an included offense in the definition of criminal vehicular injury and homicide. To be charged with either crime, someone must be suspected of driving under the influence and there must be an injury or death. Egstad said the crimes and their related statutes do not exist separately from each other.

Hushka argued that Bell was misled and, because of that, he could not voluntarily consent to DUI testing.

He also said that, according to Erickson’s testimony, when he was dispatched to the crash, the trooper received a report that a child on scene was receiving CPR.

“In other words, at the very initial call, he understood that there was a serious injury,” Hushka said.

In his own words, Erickson said he was “running code,” which means his emergency lights and sirens were active as he traveled to the scene, Hushka said.

He said Erickson also described the scene when he arrived as “hectic,” multiple people were stopping by to help and there were various law enforcement officers and paramedics on scene. He said everybody was scrambling, just trying to preserve life, Hushka said.

“When he arrived at the scene, he understood that they were trying to save life, that this was a death or serious bodily injury case,” Hushka said.

When Erickson arrested Bell, he said it would be a death or serious injury charge, according to his testimony cited in the hearing Monday. Egstad said Erickson didn’t actually know at the time if that would be true, and troopers ultimately do not make charging decisions.

Sandberg ruled that Erickson wasn’t credible, but Egstad argued the judge made assumptions about what Erickson would have known when he got to the scene.

“Ultimately, there needs to be a standard for law enforcement to follow when it comes to implied consent,” Egstad said.