City of Fargo v. Wonder

20010263 City of Fargo, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Nancy Michelle Wonder, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Judge Norman J. Backes
Nature of Action: Misc. Statutory Off. (Misdemeanor)
Counsel:
Appellant: Stephen R. Dawson , City Prosecutor
Appellee: Serkland Law Firm
Term: 02/2002   Argument: 02/11/2002  2:45pm
ND cite: 2002 ND 142
NW cite: 651 N.W.2d 665

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. The pre trial order to suppress evidence and to exclude evidence is appealable by the city of fargo pursuant to n.d.c.c.  29-28-07 (5).
II.The trial court erred in suppressing the defendant's statement concerning the defendant's age.
a.Statements sought to be suppressed were statements appellee may have made in response to questions concerning consumption of alcohol. No evidence was presented concerning statements made by appellee concerning her age and this question was not before the court.
b.Appellee's statement to police officers concerning her age were related to the booking process and not subject to miranda.
III.The trial court erred in suppressing the results of the SD-2 breath testing device.
a. The trial court erred when it ruled results of the SD-2 were inadmissible based upon constitutional grounds as that question was not before the court and no notice was given to the city concerning that issue.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Standard of review when a Trial Court grants a suppression motion.
2. Only a Pretrial Order to suppress evidence and to exclude evidence is appealable by the plaintiff pursuant to N.D.C.C.  29-28-07(5).
3. The Trial Court correctly suppressed the defendant's admission that she was under the age of 21. The Defendant was in custody and being interrogated by law enforcement and had not been given Miranda warnings.
a) Appellee requested that the Court suppress all evidence which was obtained through a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. This included statements and evidence obtained by law enforcement relating to the elements of the crime.
b) Appellee was questioned by law enforcement in the apartment relating to her age. This line of questioning was for the purpose of determining her involvement in the commission of a crime and not related to the booking process.
4. The Trial Court as a matter of law, correctly suppressed the results of the SD-2 breath testing device.
a) The Trial Court correctly suppressed the results of the SD-2, as Nancy Wonder raised the issue in her suppression motion and all parties presented evidence and testimony at the Trial Court on this issue and no objections were made by the City to preserve the argument that no notice was given to the City.
b) The Trial Court did not exclude the results of the breath test because of a statutory violation. The Court excluded the results of the breath test as a violation of the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure laws. Also, the Appellant has included documentation in the Appendix which was not part of the Trial Court record.

Add Docket 20010263 RSS Add Docket 20010263 RSS

Docket entries:
110/22/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 10/18/2001
210/22/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 10/18/2001
311/07/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED September 4, 2001
411/07/2001 DISK - TRA via e-mail
511/13/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL, w/exception of Entry Nos. 23, 29, & 31 (tapes)
612/17/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF
712/17/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX
812/18/2001 DISK - ATB
901/14/2002 APPELLEE BRIEF
1001/14/2002 DISK - AEB
1101/15/2002 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AFF. IN SUPPORT, NOTICE OF MOTION (NOTE: to be heard with the merits). RspDue: 01/25/2002
1201/24/2002 Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion for Sanctions
1301/24/2002 NO ACTION TAKEN - the Motion for Sanctions will be heard with the merits.
1402/11/2002 APPEARANCES: Stephen R. Dawson; Beverley L. Adams
1502/11/2002 ARGUED: Dawson; Adams (Vol. X; Page 203)
1602/11/2002 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1708/29/2002 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
1808/29/2002 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
1909/11/2002 AMENDED JUDGMENT FILED
2009/11/2002 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2109/11/2002 Corrected/Substitute Opinion Page 9
2209/23/2002 MANDATE
2309/26/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2410/01/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/21/2014