would bear the burden of proof as the moving party. “... Therefore, in the instant ease, Miriam must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of the investigation and the determination of the investigation were both incorrect.” Accordingly, Stone Creek is distinguishable, and the Department’s erroneous allocation of the burden of proof is reversible error. IV Although we would ordinarily remand for new findings when an error in allocating the burden of proof occurs, it is unnecessary to do so in this case because we further conclude, as a matter of law, the Department’s probable cause determination is not supported by the evidence and is not in accordance with the relevant statutory law. See Ornelas v. United States, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of N.D.C.C. Ch. 50-25.1, “abused
holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo