City of Fargo v. Wonder
City of Fargo, Plaintiff and Appellant
Nancy Michelle Wonder, Defendant and Appellee
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Norman J. Backes
|Nature of Action:||Misc. Statutory Off. (Misdemeanor)|
|Term:||02/2002  Argument: 02/11/2002|
|ND cite:||2002 ND 142|
651 N.W.2d 665
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
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|
|1||10/22/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 10/18/2001|
|2||10/22/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 10/18/2001|
|3||11/07/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED September 4, 2001|
|4||11/07/2001 DISK - TRA via e-mail|
|5||11/13/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL, w/exception of Entry Nos. 23, 29, & 31 (tapes)|
|6||12/17/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|7||12/17/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|8||12/18/2001 DISK - ATB|
|9||01/14/2002 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|10||01/14/2002 DISK - AEB|
|11||01/15/2002 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AFF. IN SUPPORT, NOTICE OF MOTION (NOTE: to be heard with the merits). RspDue: 01/25/2002|
|12||01/24/2002 Appellant's Response to Appellee's Motion for Sanctions|
|13||01/24/2002 NO ACTION TAKEN - the Motion for Sanctions will be heard with the merits.|
|14||02/11/2002 APPEARANCES: Stephen R. Dawson; Beverley L. Adams|
|15||02/11/2002 ARGUED: Dawson; Adams (Vol. X; Page 203)|
|16||02/11/2002 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|17||08/29/2002 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|18||08/29/2002 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.|
|19||09/11/2002 AMENDED JUDGMENT FILED|
|20||09/11/2002 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|21||09/11/2002 Corrected/Substitute Opinion Page 9|
|23||09/26/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|24||10/01/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|