State v. Hayes

20110098

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Anna Maria Hayes, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from:

District Court, Northwest Judicial District, Divide County
Judge Joshua B. Rustad

Nature of Action:

Counsel:

Appellant:		Benjamin C. Pulkrabek
Appellee:		Elizabeth Ledgerwood Pendlay , State's Attorney

Term:

10/2011 Argument: 10/11/2011 02:45pm

ND cite:

2012 ND 9

NW cite:

809 N.W.2d 309

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Issues:

Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
In North Dakota, after a person has been arrested and charged with a class A Misdemeanor possession of marijuana, can the judge require that that person as a release condition consent to a warrantless search of her residence?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The defendant's arguments on appeal are relevant only to Divide County District Court numbers 12-08-k-00066 and 12-08-k-00067, with the respective Supreme Court numbers being 20110100 and 20110101, and Supreme Court appeal numbers 20110098 and 20110099 should be dismissed accordingly
II. The Fourth Amendment issues raised by the defendant are moot because the residence searched was not defendant's residence and, therefore, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and related standing under the Fourth Amendment to allege a Fourth Amendment violation.
III. In the event that the defendant has standing to allege a Fourth Amendment violation, the District Court properly denied the defendant's June 29, 2010 motion to suppress based upon valid exceptions to the warrant requirement
A. The Defendant consented to the search of her residence and thus provided a valid exception to the warrant requirement.
B. The warrantless search provision within the amended bond order does not violate the federal or state constitutions.
C. In the event that the warrantless search provision is unconstitutional, suppression was properly denied by the district court based upon the good faith exception to the warrant requirement.

Add Docket 20110098 RSS

Docket entries:

1	04/12/2011	NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/08/2011
2	04/12/2011	ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 04/08/2011
3	04/12/2011	This case is consolidated w/20110099-20110101. Make all entries in this case except ROA, DIS & MAN.
4	05/06/2011	RECORD ON APPEAL (Image #1-103)(Not certified: State's Exhibits 1,5,6,7,8&9)
5	05/25/2011	TRANSCRIPTS DATED 12-10-08;1-14-09;1-28-09;2-25-09;1-13-10;9-15-10;& 10-21&22-09(7 vols)& C.O.S.
6	05/25/2011	DISK - tra (12/10/08; 01/14/09; 01/28/09; 2-25-09; 1-13-10; 9-15-10; & 10-21&22-10 (e-mailed)
7	06/22/2011	APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)
8	06/22/2011	E-FILED BRIEF (atb)
9	06/22/2011	APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)
10	06/22/2011	E-FILED APPENDIX (ata)
11	06/23/2011	Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #20375).
12	06/27/2011	Received corrected electronic copy and signature page for ATB.
13	06/28/2011	Received $4.50 e-filing surcharge for ATA (Receipt #20379).
14	06/28/2011	Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.
15	06/28/2011	Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.
16	07/25/2011	APPELLEE BRIEF
17	07/26/2011	DISK-AEB (E-MAILED)
18	09/02/2011	NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
19	10/11/2011	APPEARANCES: Benjamin C. Pulkrabek/Elizabeth L. Pendlay, State's Attorney
20	10/11/2011	ARGUED: Pulkrabek/Pendlay
21	10/11/2011	ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
22	01/12/2012	DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
23	01/12/2012	UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
24	01/13/2012	Judgment Sent to Parties
25	02/01/2012	Mot. Ext/Time Petition for Rehearing & Aff/Support
26	02/01/2012	E-FILED MOTION (MPR)
27	02/01/2012	ACTION BY CLERK (MPR). Granted: 01/30/2012
28	01/30/2012	PETITION FOR REHEARING of Appellee
29	02/01/2012	DISK - per (e-mailed)
30	02/17/2012	ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Pet/Rehearing). Denied
31	03/02/2012	MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/20/2013