North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights
By Michael J . Morley
Author ’ s Note and Caveat : The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court . Because the following contain 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 .
Smith v . Isakson , et . al . 2021 ND 131 . Filed 7-22-21 .
In this debate over the vagaries of Constitutional Law , the Supreme Court stated citizens of the state of North Dakota may have greater protections under the North Dakota Constitution than the United States Constitution . The Court held the North Dakota Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for an infraction-level violation of a Bismarck , N . D ., ordinance , whereas the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution would not do likewise . The Supreme Court , therefore , granted the petition for a supervisory writ and remanded the case back to the district court for a jury trial .
State v . Stands . 2021 ND 135 . Filed 7-22-21 .
The defendant appealed from a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of possession with intent to manufacture or distribute meth . The defendant contended the police entered his hotel room in violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights and all evidence obtained after that should have been suppressed under the exclusionary rule . The Supreme Court affirmed the defendant ’ s conviction because , while the police did reach over the threshold of an open door into a hotel room , this took place in a public place and a police officer may , in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner , detain an individual for investigative purposes when there is no probable cause to make an arrest if a reasonable and articulable suspicion exists that criminal activity is afoot . The Court held the denial of the defendant ’ s motion to suppress was appropriate and his criminal judgment was affirmed .
City of West Fargo v . McAllister , et . al . 2021 ND 136 . Filed 7-22-21 .
In this eminent domain appeal by the defendant , the Supreme Court held that because the district court ’ s quick-take eminent domain judgment left open the potential for more litigation between the parties and another appeal , the district court ’ s Rule 54 ( b ), N . D . R . Civ . P . certification was not appropriate because none of the parties , nor the district court , demonstrated the appeal was other than a mere standard interlocutory appeal . The Supreme Court held a Rule 54 ( b ) certification should not be routinely granted and is reserved for only cases involving unusual circumstances where a failure to allow an immediate appeal would create a demonstrated prejudice or hardship . The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant ’ s appeal .
Lavallie v . Jay , et . al . 2021 ND 140 . Filed 8-5-21 .
In this civil personal injury action , the Supreme Court set aside and vacated a state court judgment against the defendant in excess of $ 946,000 . The Supreme Court found that because the land upon which the roadway where the accident occurred was tribal trust land , validly set apart for use by the Native American tribe and its members , the state district court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the accident because the lawsuit was brought against the defendant , a Native American , based upon conduct occurring in Indian country . The Supreme Court further held that a state district court does not have concurrent jurisdiction with a tribal court because that would constitute unlawful infringement with the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the Native American tribe . The judgment of almost $ 1,000,000 was vacated and the state district court case was dismissed .
State v . Cochran . 2021 ND 141 . Filed 8-5-21 .
In a rare appeal by the state in a criminal drug possession with intent to deliver case , the Supreme Court affirmed the district court ’ s order granting the defendant ’ s motion to suppress evidence . The defendant in this case shared a residence with her son , an individual on probation . However , because the defendant ’ s bedroom in the residence was used only by her and only she had a key to the room , the Court determined the defendant ’ s bedroom was not a “ common area ” of the residence subject to a probationary search of the son . Accordingly , because the search of the defendant ’ s bedroom was performed without a warrant , the drug evidence found therein was properly suppressed by the district court . Even though the defendant ’ s son consented in advance to searches of his premises , as a term of his probation , because the bedroom used exclusively by his mother was not a “ common area ,” a warrant for the search was required .
Michael J . Morley received his juris doctor with distinction and was admitted to the Order of the Coif upon graduation from the University of North Dakota School of Law in 1979 . That same year , he was admitted to practice law in North Dakota State Courts and the United States District Courts for the District of North Dakota . In 1981 , he was admitted in the Minnesota State Courts and the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota , as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . He is a member of the State Bar Associations of North Dakota and Minnesota and is currently president and shareholder of Morley Law Firm , Ltd ., in Grand Forks .
FALL 2021 21