North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights
By Michael J . Morley
Authors ’ s Note and Caveat : The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court . Because the following contains the author ’ s summary of the decisions , the reader is encouraged to read the entire published decision to determine its precedential value , if any , in a given case .
State v . Bell , 2017 ND 157
In October 2016 , a law enforcement officer stopped a vehicle for failing to operate with headlights during the evening hours . An assorted cast of somewhat unsavory characters occupied the vehicle . When stopped , the driver gave the officer a false name . After discovering the driver ’ s true identity , the officer found there was an outstanding warrant for her . The officer also learned the driver and the back seat passenger were on probation for controlled substance offenses . Because of the headlight violation , the officer decided to issue a written warning . While issuing the warning , the officer requested the assistance of a drug detecting dog , which arrived within five minutes of the request . Upon arriving , the dog detected the presence of illegal drugs in the vehicle . The vehicle was subsequently searched , and meth and drug paraphernalia were found . The defendant , the front seat passenger , was charged with possession of meth , drug paraphernalia , and ingesting a controlled substance . She moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of the vehicle , arguing she was unreasonably detained beyond the time required for the initial traffic stop and the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on her part to justify her continued detention , and that once the driver was arrested and detained on a bench warrant , there was no reason to detain the defendant any longer . As said , the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the search of the vehicle . The District Court denied the motion . She appealed the District Court ’ s judgment after entering a conditional plea of guilty to the charges , arguing to the Supreme Court that the evidence found in the vehicle should have been suppressed and she should not have been convicted of the crimes . The Supreme Court rejected her arguments and affirmed the District Court ’ s judgment of conviction . The Supreme Court stated that the defendant was detained as a passenger in the vehicle only for the duration of the traffic stop . The traffic stop ended when the driver was placed under arrest on her outstanding warrant . The defendant presented no evidence at the suppression hearing showing she was not free to leave after the driver ’ s arrest and a review of the record did not suggest otherwise .
The Supreme Court stated the defendant urged them to assume she was not free to leave after the driver was arrested . The Supreme Court declined to do so . The Court stated the defendant was not seized during the time the dog was sniffing the car and , therefore , her Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated or violated . Apparently , the defendant had a window of time between the time the driver was placed under arrest and while the dog was sniffing for drugs in the vehicle . She could have walked away during that window of time . She instead voluntarily remained at the scene during this time and chose not to leave . Because she was not detained during that time , her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure were not implicated or violated . Therefore , she could properly be found guilty for possession of the drugs in the vehicle after the dog detected them . The moral of this story : When the canine comes a-callin ’, you ’ d best be a haulin ’!
State v . Hedstrom , 2017 ND 156
This case is interesting primarily because bounty hunters are apparently still alive and well . In this case , some bounty hunters , around midnight one night , kicked down the defendant ’ s front door and entered his home . The bounty hunters requested law enforcement secure a perimeter outside the home and be available should a physical confrontation break out between the bounty hunters and anyone inside the home . Because the police officers did not have a search warrant for the home , they told the bounty hunters they would not assist them in the search but would only form an outside perimeter to ensure everyone ’ s safety . While finding no one inside the home , the bounty hunters did find several large growing plants of certain illicit controlled substances . When they left the house , they showed the police officers photographs they took inside and described the marijuana plants they saw . The police officers used this information to obtain a search warrant of the home . The defendant was charged with manufacturing and possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana paraphernalia . The defendant moved to suppress the evidence during the search of his home , arguing the bounty hunters ’ search was in fact a governmentsanctioned warrantless search in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . The District Court rejected his arguments and allowed the evidence to be used against him in criminal proceedings . He entered a conditional plea of guilty to charges of manufacturing and possession of marijuana , arguing on appeal that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the drugs , etc ., as evidence against him .
The Supreme Court rejected the defendant ’ s arguments on appeal and affirmed the criminal judgment . The Supreme Court said the Fourth Amendment limits only governmental action and is wholly inapplicable to a search conducted by a private individual , even an unreasonable one , unless the private individual acted either as an agent of the government or with the participation or knowledge of any government official . The Supreme Court held that even though the law enforcement officers were present and acquiesced in the
28 THE GAVEL