Drugs/Contraband

State v. Lunde , 2008 ND 142,
Evidence which is illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule; however, under the good-faith exception, evidence should not be excluded when an officer has acted in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance on the magistrate's probable cause decision.
The good-faith inquiry focuses upon whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.
The good-faith exception does not apply because the officer's reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable: (1) when the issuing magistrate was misled by false information intentionally or negligently given by the affiant; (2) when the magistrate totally abandoned her judicial role and failed to act in a neutral and detached manner; (3) when the warrant was based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable"; and (4) when a reasonable law enforcement officer could not rely on a facially deficient warrant.
State v. Schmeets , 2008 ND 119,
Order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4), and remanded to correct clerical errors.
State v. Mayer , 2008 ND 120,
Conviction for possessing marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State v. Gay , 2008 ND 84, 748 N.W.2d 408
Under the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs whenever an officer stops an individual and restrains his freedom, and that seizure must be reasonable.
A search, under the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the government intrudes upon an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
A pat-down search is not simply a routine preliminary to a more extensive search.
The exclusionary rule prohibits the admission of physical and testimonial evidence gathered illegally.
State v. Herbel , 2008 ND 63,
Conviction of possession of marijuana by a driver is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Brockel , 2008 ND 50, 746 N.W.2d 423
An officer can order a driver to sit in the patrol car when the officer issues a citation.
To justify a pat-down search, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous, or the person consented to the search.
State v. Fischer , 2008 ND 32, 744 N.W.2d 760
Consent to search may be given by parties with actual or apparent authority, when viewed from the officer's perspective.
When ineffective assistance of counsel is raised on direct appeal, an appellate court reviews the record to determine if counsel was plainly defective.
Before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel, the district court must determine whether the waiver was voluntary and was made knowingly and intelligently.
A criminal defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel and elects self-representation, and who has been appointed standby counsel, is not constitutionally entitled to access to a law library.
Pretrial bail issues are moot after conviction, unless the amount prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of his defense.
A presumptively prejudicial delay of one year or more does not alone create a speedy-trial violation.
Government employment does not constitute an implied bias for purposes of excusing a juror.
State v. Schmalz , 2008 ND 27, 744 N.W.2d 734
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances relied upon by the judge who issues the warrant would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe the contraband or evidence sought probably will be found in the place to be searched.
"Bare-bones" information is not sufficient to satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrant.
The determination of whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is a question of law.
Simply because a warrant application contains some information that is not relevant, or is, in and of itself, insufficient to create probable cause, does not necessarily mean probable cause did not exist to validly issue the warrant.
While the our state constitution may, in certain instances, provide greater individual rights than those afforded under the federal constitution, like the Fourth Amendment, Article I, section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution is not implicated unless a reasonable expectation of privacy is invaded.
State v. Kochel , 2008 ND 28, 744 N.W.2d 771
Whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy is reviewed de novo.
State v. Odom , 2008 ND 2, 747 N.W.2d 136
A district court drug-offenses criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State v. St. Claire , 2008 ND 1, 747 N.W.2d 136
Judgment in a drug case following denial of motion to suppress evidence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).
State v. Hurt , 2007 ND 192, 743 N.W.2d 102
In a review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress, the district court's findings of fact are given deference, and conflicts in testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance.
One exception to the warrant requirement is voluntary consent by the individual whose property is searched, or by a third party who possesses common authority over the premises.
The Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to provide co-occupants opportunity to assert their Fourth Amendment rights at the door; rather, the protections provide that a physically present co-occupant, who expressly refuses to permit the search despite the consent of his fellow occupant, renders the warrantless search unreasonable as to him.
The co-occupant who is not present at the door and does not refuse the search at the time his fellow occupant provides consent "loses out" on his opportunity to exclude evidence gathered in a common-area, co-occupant consent search.
State v. Matuska , 2007 ND 190, 742 N.W.2d 839
An order denying a request to withdraw a guilty plea may be summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Jacobs , 2007 ND 176, 742 N.W.2d 839
Amended criminal judgment for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Thompson , 2007 ND 173, 742 N.W.2d 839
An order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Gruett , 2007 ND 157, 742 N.W.2d 839
Conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Overby , 2007 ND 158, 742 N.W.2d 839
Findings of parole violations, revocation of parole and re-sentencing to an additional year of incarceration are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Jager , 2007 ND 152, 742 N.W.2d 839
Conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Silbernagel , 2007 ND 97, 734 N.W.2d 342
Denial of motion to suppress evidence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).
State v. Tutt , 2007 ND 77, 732 N.W.2d 382
Standing alone, a statutory minimum sentence is not an "element" of the offense.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the fact of a prior conviction must be found by a jury.
State v. Falconer , 2007 ND 89, 732 N.W.2d 703
A defendant is entitled to a self-defense jury instruction if there is evidence to support it.
A defendant does not have standing to challenge a grant of immunity to another person.
An accomplice's testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the crime.
State v. Dennis , 2007 ND 87, 733 N.W.2d 241
Consistent with the presumption that compliance with the constitutions of the state and of the United States is intended, criminal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the defendant and against the government.
When a form of conduct, the manner of its performance and operation, and the persons and things to which it refers are designated, there is an inference that all omissions should be understood as exclusions.
N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.1(1)(a) provides an offense enhancement only for the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school.
State v. Albaugh , 2007 ND 86, 732 N.W.2d 712
An expectation of privacy in commercial property where the public is apparently welcome is different from, and less than, a similar expectation in an individual's home.
Plain view is a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement to seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant if the officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object and the object's incriminating character is immediately apparent.
A search incident to an arrest is a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement, which allows an arresting officer to lawfully search the area within the arrestee's immediate control.
Consent is a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement, so long as the consent is given freely and voluntarily, without any threats or promises having been made.
State v. Kieper , 2008 ND 65, 747 N.W.2d 497
Mere suspicion that criminal activity is taking place, which may warrant further investigation, does not rise to the level of probable cause to support issuance of a search warrant.
Issues not raised before the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
State v. Fischer , 2007 ND 22, 727 N.W.2d 750
An order denying an extension of time to file the notice of appeal terminates the appeal, and thus it is reviewed more closely than an order granting an extension.
The district court must find that either excusable neglect or good cause exists before granting an extension of the time for appeal.
The district court has likely abused its discretion if it does not provide an explanation for the decision to grant or deny an extension.
State v. Duchene , 2007 ND 31, 727 N.W.2d 769
Issues not briefed by an appellant are abandoned, and become the law of the case and will not be considered on appeal.
State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, 726 N.W.2d 591
North Dakota is a sovereign, separate from the federal government, and the state's power to prosecute crimes is derived from its inherent sovereignty, not from the federal government.
As a result of inherent state sovereignty, state court proceedings are not ancillary to federal proceedings and state courts are not in privity with or bound by a federal court decision on a motion to suppress evidence.
Contraband found in a search incident to a valid arrest is admissible unless the search is invalidated on another basis.
State v. Myers , 2006 ND 242, 724 N.W.2d 168
A fundamental principle of constitutional law is that a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant's failure to testify in a criminal case.
When there is an adjournment of proceedings in a jury trial, the district court must admonish a jury that it is their duty not to converse among themselves nor with anyone else on any subject connected with the trial, nor to form or express any opinion thereon, until the case is finally submitted to them.
State v. Oliver , 2006 ND 241, 724 N.W.2d 114
A faded temporary registration certificate with no visible printing is indicative of a temporary certificate that is more than thirty days old and provides an objective fact giving an officer a right to stop a vehicle to check its validity.
State v. Johnson , 2006 ND 248, 724 N.W.2d 129
A police officer's belief that many people violate the thirty-day temporary registration law does not give rise to reasonable suspicion that an automobile is not lawfully registered.
State v. Ebel , 2006 ND 212, 723 N.W.2d 375
The Court looks at the "totality of the circumstances" on appeal, giving deference to the district court's findings, to determine whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause.
An evidentiary hearing on whether false statements were provided to support the issuance of a search warrant is only required where: (1) a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing, accompanied by an offer of proof, that false statements were made in support of a search warrant, either knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and (2) the allegedly false statements are necessary to a finding of probable cause.
State v. Odom , 2006 ND 209, 722 N.W.2d 370
Warrantless searches are unreasonable unless they fall within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. The scope of an individual's consent is determined by considering what an objectively reasonable person would have understood the consent to include. The scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object.
When general consent is given to search a room, no limitations are placed on the consent, the consent is not withdrawn, and the expressed object of the search is known, a police officer can reasonably search locked or closed containers within the room without a warrant.
State v. Graf , 2006 ND 196, 721 N.W.2d 381
Warrantless searches inside an individual's home are presumptively unreasonable, but searches inside an individual's home are not unreasonable if the search falls under one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Consent to search is an exception to the warrant requirement.
Consent to search purges the taint of prior unlawful police activity if the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and if the taint of the prior unlawful activity is purged, considering the temporal proximity between the illegal search and the consent, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
Consultation with an attorney may purge the taint of prior unlawful police activity.
State v. Woinarowicz , 2006 ND 179, 720 N.W.2d 635
The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not apply to the same extent at pretrial suppression hearings as it does at trial.
A district court is not bound by the Rules of Evidence at pretrial evidentiary hearings.
Constructive possession of a controlled substance may be established by showing the individual had the power and ability to exercise dominion and control over the controlled substance.
An arrestee's person and purse may be searched incident to arrest.
State v. Campbell , 2006 ND 168, 719 N.W.2d 374
Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements in criminal cases is precluded, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
A defendant can waive a potential Confrontation Clause violation by failing to exercise a statutorily defined opportunity to subpoena the author of the state crime laboratory report.
State v. Hansen , 2006 ND 139, 717 N.W.2d 541
An appellate court does not render advisory opinions and will dismiss an appeal if the issues have become moot or so academic that no actual controversy is left to be decided.
When a district court fails to follow established procedures and orderly process in declaring a law unconstitutional, supervisory jurisdiction may be used to vacate the district court's order.
State v. Jelleberg , 2006 ND 131, 719 N.W.2d 759
Conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
State v. Oien , 2006 ND 138, 717 N.W.2d 593
An individual trespassing is not entitled to the protections of the Fourth Amendment because he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
State v. Frederick , 2006 ND 113, 719 N.W.2d 384
Convictions of manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and abuse or neglect of a child are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Grager , 2006 ND 102, 713 N.W.2d 531
A prosecutor does not have the right to appeal an order dismissing a case when the proseuctor requested the dismissal.
The prosecution may not appeal an order suppressing evidence after the case has been dismissed at its request.
State v. Haibeck , 2006 ND 100, 714 N.W.2d 52
Unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.
An argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed will not be considered on appeal.
A motion for acquittal may not be granted before the prosecution has the opportunity to present its evidence.
State v. Genre , 2006 ND 77, 712 N.W.2d 624
Voluntary consent to search is an exception to the warrant requirement.
An officer is generally not required to administer the Miranda warning during a traffic stop because the person is not in custody.
Statements made to law enforcement in an effort to cooperate with the hope of receiving some benefit are not statements made during a plea discussion and are admissible.
State v. Hoverson , 2006 ND 49, 710 N.W.2d 890
The level of outrageous conduct necessary to prove a due process violation and bar prosecution is quite high and must shock the conscience of the court.
A trial court may permit cross-examination of a witness regarding the underlying facts of a conviction involving dishonesty or deceit.
A trial court may permit cross-examination of a witness regarding specific instances of conduct not resulting in a conviction.
A sentencing court may make reasonable inferences based upon evidence in the record, and those inferences may be a factor in sentencing.
State v. Stewart , 2006 ND 39, 710 N.W.2d 403
The Court looks at the "totality of the circumstances" on appeal, giving deference to the district court's findings, to determine whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause.
A search warrant must describe with particularity the places to be searched and items to be seized to avoid "exploratory rummaging" in its execution.
The State must provide actual notice of its intention to admit prior bad acts testimony.
State v. Garten , 2006 ND 38, 711 N.W.2d 606
Denials of a motion to suppress, motion to sever the counts against the defendant, and a motion for new trial are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Burgard , 2006 ND 5, 711 N.W.2d 606
Conviction of unlawful possession of drug related paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Nikle , 2006 ND 25, 708 N.W.2d 867
Great weight is given to a potential juror's claim that he or she will maintain impartiality.
No legal rule is violated if a jury panel is not rejected after one venireperson makes a comment which, though arguably inappropriate, does not affect the fairness or impartiality of any member of the venire.
Assistance of counsel is effective if, despite counsel's "errors," the results of the proceedings would remain unchanged.
State v. Shermer , 2005 ND 210, 709 N.W.2d 21
An appeal from a criminal judgment and an order denying a motion to suppress is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Pailing , 2005 ND 211, 709 N.W.2d 21
An amended judgment, an order denying a motion to amend a criminal judgment, and an order denying a petition for post-conviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Steen , 2005 ND 199, 709 N.W.2d 21
Order denying motion for a new trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Bartelson , 2005 ND 172, 704 N.W.2d 824
An officer's subjective intent is irrelevant on the question of probable cause if a driver has committed a traffic violation.
An officer's probable cause does not disintegrate simply because another police officer had previously stopped the same vehicle for the same violation.
State v. Ressler , 2005 ND 140, 701 N.W.2d 915
Reasonable suspicion does not permit law enforcement authorities to transport a seized package from the place where suspicion arose to a law enforcement center for further investigation.
Evidence derived based on an illegal seizure must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
State v. Driscoll , 2005 ND 105, 697 N.W.2d 351
A magistrate's probable-cause decision is reviewed using a totality-of-the-circumstances test. A substantial basis for the magistrate's conclusion must exist.
To establish probable cause for a search, there must be a nexus between the place to be searched and the contraband sought, and circumstantial evidence can establish this nexus.
Unsupported and conclusory statements are alone insufficient to establish probable cause.
If an accepted, reasonable theory of probable cause subsequently proves to be untrue or unfounded, it does not retroactively undermine a previously correct conclusion that probable cause to search existed, invalidate a properly issued search warrant, or release a criminal actor from culpability for crimes uncovered during the execution of the search warrant.
In executing a valid search warrant, police may inspect and open any item that could reasonably contain the objects of the search, regardless of whether these items are personal or private or specifically particularized in the search warrant.
State v. Nelson , 2005 ND 59, 693 N.W.2d 910
If an application for a search warrant contains statements intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, the false material must be set aside, and if the remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded.
To establish probable cause for a search, there must be a nexus between the place to be searched and the contraband sought.
Mere suspicion that criminal activity is taking place which may warrant further investigation does not rise to a level of probable cause to search.
State v. Fields , 2005 ND 15, 691 N.W.2d 233
Actual drug evidence, rather than indicia of drugs, obtained from a garbage search, is enough to support probable cause for a search warrant.
Nighttime search warrants cannot be issued on a per se basis in drug cases. Facts supporting probable cause to justify the necessity of the nighttime execution must be set forth.
State v. Nelson , 2005 ND 11, 691 N.W.2d 218
The emergency exception to the warrant requirement may apply even when officers are already legitimately inside a residence when an emergency occurs.
Consent to search must be proven by affirmative conduct. Merely taking no action to stop officers from searching is not enough to prove conduct consistent with giving consent.
For probable cause to issue a search warrant, the magistrate must be provided with a factual basis for the affiant's assumptions. Mere speculation and conclusory statements are not enough.
During the execution of a search warrant, the presence of a third party not actually participating in the search does not necessitate suppression of the evidence discovered.
State v. Smith , 2005 ND 21, 691 N.W.2d 203
The information obtained by a police officer from an anonymous informant cannot alone establish probable cause if the tip provides virtually nothing from which a person might conclude the informant is honest or his information is reliable, or if the information gives absolutely no indication of the basis for identifying the criminal activities.
A police officer needs at least one reasonable and articulable factor to stop a seemingly innocent car.
State v. Jackson-Metcalf , 2005 ND 2, 694 N.W.2d 22
A revocation of probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Steen , 2004 ND 228, 690 N.W.2d 239
To prevail in a post-conviction proceeding on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show not only that trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but must also demonstrate prejudice by establishing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different.
State v. Linghor , 2004 ND 224, 690 N.W.2d 201
Probable cause to arrest an automobile passenger exists where drug paraphernalia is in plain view in the car.
The existence of an arrest is determined objectively, gauged by whether a reasonable person would conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave.
When a jury is unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial results, a subsequent retrial is not double jeopardy.
A trial judge has discretion in declaring a mistrial due to a hung jury, and while reasonable jury deliberation should be encouraged, a judge does not abuse that discretion in declaring a mistrial when the judge asks the jury for a list of divisive issues, polls the jurors to determine whether a verdict could be reached, and spends considerable time consulting both parties regarding available options.
State v. Hayek , 2004 ND 211, 689 N.W.2d 422
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is more properly pursued in a post-conviction relief proceeding. Without a properly developed record, it is difficult to determine whether an attorney's conduct is part of a legitimate trial strategy or if the representation fell below the acceptable standard of reasonableness.
Failure to object at the time of an alleged error waives the claimed error and does not preserve the issue for appeal.
State v. Donovan , 2004 ND 201, 688 N.W.2d 646
Suppression of evidence in a criminal case is proper when the defendant is able to show the search warrant was issued in reliance upon an affidavit containing false or misleading statements.
Credibility of an informant who is a member of the "criminal milieu" must be established by more than easily obtainable facts.
State v. Spidahl , 2004 ND 168, 686 N.W.2d 115
Probable cause to arrest does not require that commission of the offense be established with absolute certainty, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Haibeck , 2004 ND 163, 685 N.W.2d 512
Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant where probable cause exists.
When conducting a search under the automobile exception, law enforcement does not need separate findings of probable cause to support multiple searches of a vehicle when the searches are virtually contemporaneous.
A Miranda violation does not require suppression of the physical fruits of a suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements.
The fact that an officer may have authority to arrest a suspect does not mean that a suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda.
State v. Mitzel , 2004 ND 157, 685 N.W.2d 120
The existence of consent and whether it is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.
Consent cannot reasonably be implied from silence and failure to object.
Consent should not be lightly inferred, must be proven by clear and positive testimony, and must be unequivocal.
The government has the burden to prove that consent was voluntarily given.
The mere fact that a person has been arrested in violation of his constitutional rights casts grave doubt upon the voluntariness of a subsequent consent.
Miranda warnings are a factor to consider under the voluntariness test, but a Miranda warning cannot support voluntariness of consent when it is given after the consent.
State v. Berger , 2004 ND 151, 683 N.W.2d 897
When no separate judgment of conviction has been entered and an order deferring imposition of sentence complies with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(b) for criminal judgments, the order serves as the judgment and is appealable.
When considered in totality, a driver's erratic driving, belligerent and physically aggressive conduct, use of profanity, extreme nervousness, physical shaking and inability to stand still, glossy and watery eyes, and failure of a light reactivity field sobriety test may be sufficient to create probable cause to arrest the driver for driving under the influence of drugs.
State v. Decoteau , 2004 ND 139, 681 N.W.2d 803
The reasonable suspicion standard does not require an officer to rule out every potential innocent excuse for the behavior in question before stopping a vehicle for investigation.
An officer's knowledge that a driver's license was suspended when stopped by the same officer one week earlier is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity and support an investigatory stop of the vehicle.
State v. Krous , 2004 ND 136, 681 N.W.2d 822
The word "submit" in a probation condition similar to that in N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-07(4)(n) means consent to a reasonable warrantless search.
State v. Markel , 2004 ND 103, 688 N.W.2d 402
Conviction for class B felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Guthmiller , 2004 ND 100, 680 N.W.2d 235
The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of objective reasonableness.
A district court's decision on a suppression motion is affirmed unless, after resolving conflicting evidence in favor of affirmance, there is insufficient competent evidence to support the decision or the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence.
State v. Parizek , 2004 ND 78, 678 N.W.2d 154
Police officers may freeze a situation and conduct a limited investigative stop of persons present at the scene of a recently committed crime without violating the Fourth Amendment.
A law enforcement officer may conduct a frisk or pat down search of a person only when the officer possesses an articulable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous.
Certainty that an object is a weapon is not required before an officer may continue a pat down search to the inner clothing site where the object is located.
Generally, where an object recovered from a suspect during a pat down search is a closed container, the officer may not open the container to examine its contents unless the officer can point to specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the closed container poses a danger to the officer or others nearby.
Evidence obtained by unlawful police conduct is admissible if the prosecution proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means.
State v. Guscette , 2004 ND 71, 678 N.W.2d 126
A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment if, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free to leave the area.
A seizure does not occur under the Fourth Amendment simply because a law enforcement officer asks a person questions, and as long as reasonable persons would feel free to disregard the officer and go about their business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is required.
Consent to a search is voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is the product of an essentially free choice and not the product of coercion.
State v. Lura , 2004 ND 70, 688 N.W.2d 402
Drug convictions summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State v. Pettit , 2004 ND 50, 676 N.W.2d 813
Criminal conviction for accomplice to manufacturing methamphetamine is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Bergstrom , 2004 ND 48, 676 N.W.2d 83
A search warrant is valid if it is supported by probable cause and it particularly describes the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
A four-factor balancing is used to evaluate the validity of a speedy trial claim: length of the delay, reason for the delay, proper assertion of the right, and actual prejudice to the accused.
State v. Utvick , 2004 ND 36, 675 N.W.2d 387
Probable cause is not established for a no-knock search warrant when the magistrate is not presented with any information regarding the suspect's ability to destroy the evidence or the ease with which evidence may be destroyed.
State courts apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in a manner consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent when evaluating whether evidence should be excluded due to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule must be considered when a no-knock warrant has been issued in error.
A no-knock search warrant is not issued on a per se basis when the officer presents information sufficiently particularized to rebut any legal conclusion that the warrant was issued on a per se basis, even though the information was not sufficiently particularized to provide probable cause for a no-knock provision.
State v. Ochoa , 2004 ND 43, 675 N.W.2d 161
Without an unequivocal waiver of the constitutional right to counsel or an unequivocal assertion of the constitutional right to self-representation, a trial court is not required to permit self-representation or inquire into the issue of self-representation.
Hybrid representation is not a constitutional right. A defendant's request to proceed in such a manner is not an unequivocal assertion of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.
State v. Roth , 2004 ND 23, 674 N.W.2d 495
Irrelevant information in an affidavit for a search warrant will not negate a magistrate's finding of probable cause, if there is also enough other information in the affidavit to support the finding of probable cause. It is the duty of the magistrate to filter out the non-probative information and examine the remaining information to determine whether probable cause exists for issuance of the search warrant.
There was no violation of defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when, in executing a valid search warrant with an invalid no-knock provision, officers functionally excised the invalid portion of the search warrant by knocking and announcing their presence prior to entering the residence.
State v. Waltz , 2003 ND 197, 672 N.W.2d 457
Probable cause to arrest exists when an officer has knowledge that would give a prudent person reasonable grounds to believe an offense has been or is being committed.
After making a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the police may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile, including any containers found therein.
The tentative elimination of alcohol as the cause of a defendant's impairment may result in a reasonable suspicion that the defendant is under the influence of drugs.
State v. Parizek , 2003 ND 192, 674 N.W.2d 21
Conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Sabinash , 2003 ND 191, 674 N.W.2d 21
Conviction of drug offenses and an order denying motion to suppress summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Dodson , 2003 ND 187, 671 N.W.2d 825
There must be a nexus between the place to be searched and the contraband sought to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant.
State courts apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in a manner that is consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent when evaluating whether evidence should be excluded due to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy when an officer has acted upon objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
State v. Ballweg , 2003 ND 153, 670 N.W.2d 490
Facts in a search warrant affidavit are not misleading if there was no reckless or deliberate falsity nor omitted information that would have negated probable cause.
A high degree of suspicion attaches to the collective purchase of ingredients and supplies used to manufacture methamphetamine.
The combination of the presence of anhydrous ammonia, the collective purchase of an amount of Sudafed inconsistent with personal use and other supplies used to manufacture methamphetamine, and concealment of a garage creates a substantial basis to conclude probable cause exists to search a premises for a methamphetamine manufacturing operation.
State v. Faleide , 2003 ND 157, 674 N.W.2d 21
A revocation of probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Ricker , 2003 ND 143, 670 N.W.2d 359
Denial of a motion to suppress evidence is summarily affirmed under Rule 35.1(a)(2) and (3), N.D.R.App.P.
State v. Matthews , 2003 ND 108, 665 N.W.2d 28
A warrantless search of a dwelling for the purpose of investigation may be upheld under the emergency doctrine when the primary intent of the investigation is to render aid or assistance to someone in a dangerous situation.
An emergency doctrine search requires that: (1) the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is an emergency at hand and there is an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or property; (2) the search must not be motivated primarily by intent to arrest and seize evidence; (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.
State v. Steen , 2003 ND 116, 665 N.W.2d 688
An order correcting an illegal sentence involves a substantial right and is appealable.
A district court's failure to act, upon motion, to reduce a defendant's criminal sentence within 120 days after sentence is imposed, forecloses its power to reduce a criminal sentence.
State v. Tognotti , 2003 ND 99, 663 N.W.2d 642
An officer arresting a passenger in a vehicle can search the driver's purse incident to the arrest without violating the driver's Fourth Amendment rights. State v. Gilberts, 497 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1993), is overruled to the extent it is contrary to this holding.
A police officer cannot, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, direct a person to leave a purse in a vehicle and then proceed to search the purse incident to the arrest of another passenger in the vehicle.
State v. Corum , 2003 ND 89, 663 N.W.2d 151
Illegally obtained evidence cannot be the basis for a magistrate's finding of probable cause to support a search warrant.
To challenge a search warrant on the basis that police intentionally omitted relevant information when applying for the warrant, the defendant must show that probable cause would not have existed if the omitted information had been provided to the magistrate.
Failure to inform a magistrate about an informant's criminal history and pending criminal charges is not fatal to the validity of a search warrant.
State v. Fields , 2003 ND 81, 662 N.W.2d 242
During an investigatory stop of a vehicle, a traffic violator can be temporarily detained until the legitimate investigative purposes of the traffic stop have been completed.
Once the legitimate purposes of a traffic stop are completed, a continued seizure of a traffic violator violates the Fourth Amendment unless the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is afoot.
State v. Tollefson , 2003 ND 73, 660 N.W.2d 575
An officer who reasonably believes a suspect may have a weapon in his pocket, but who is unable to determine with certainty whether the object is a weapon during a pat-down search, acts reasonably by reaching into the pocket to recover the object.
State v. Holzer , 2003 ND 19, 656 N.W.2d 686
When challenging the validity of a search warrant based on an allegation of information being omitted from the application for the warrant, the defendant must show (1) that the police omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading, and (2) that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.
State v. Hammeren , 2003 ND 6, 655 N.W.2d 707
The defendant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, the affirmative defense of entrapment.
The statute permitting minors to be transferred from juvenile court to the district court for certain crimes was enacted to treat minors as adults for purposes of prosecution. Thus, law enforcement officers are entitled to investigate minors engaged in drug-related activity the same way they would an adult.
State v. Boyd , 2002 ND 203, 654 N.W.2d 392
A community caretaking encounter does not involve detecting, investigating, or acquiring evidence related to a potential legal violation.
The test to determine whether an officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop is whether a reasonable person in the officer's position would be justified by some objective manifestation in suspecting potential criminal activity.
State v. Jones , 2002 ND 193, 653 N.W.2d 668
A defendant charged with a felony has a right to a preliminary hearing and, if assisted by counsel, can waive this right.
A defendant must prove alleged false statements in an affidavit in support of a search warrant were made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth.
A motion to dismiss based on official misconduct is properly denied when there was no evidence to support any act of misconduct by the prosecutor.
State v. Dunn , 2002 ND 189, 653 N.W.2d 688
Persons have a reasonable privacy expectation in their personal property, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable search and seizure.
A warrantless search or seizure of personal property that has been abandoned does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Abandonment is a question of fact.
State v. Bell , 2002 ND 130, 649 N.W.2d 243
Expert witnesses may testify when no objection is made as to their expertise and qualifications.
Effective assistance of counsel is not denied when counsel fails to ask for an instruction that no longer applies.
State v. Keilen , 2002 ND 133, 649 N.W.2d 224
While the right to appeal is statutory, statutes conferring the right must be liberally construed.
The State has the burden to show a warrantless search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.
There is no community caretaking role to fill when there is no disturbance and no one is in need of assistance.
State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, 647 N.W.2d 688
Challenges to probationary searches, authorized by a probationer's conditions of probation, are reviewed under the standard of whether the search was reasonable, after examining the totality of the circumstances, including whether the search was performed in a reasonable manner.
Whether a probationary search was conducted as a subterfuge for a criminal investigation is no longer considered.
State v. Taylor , 2002 ND 107, 651 N.W.2d 692
The trial court's judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Guthmiller , 2002 ND 116, 646 N.W.2d 724
Whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is a question of law, and on appeal, the sufficiency of information before the magistrate is reviewed based on the totality of the circumstances.
For a home search warrant, the evidence before the magistrate must show a nexus between the home and the contraband sought.
State v. Laib , 2002 ND 95, 644 N.W.2d 878
Whether a defendant establishes statements made in support of a search warrant were intentionally false or made with reckless disregard of the truth is a finding of fact.
A defendant's two prior convictions for class B felony delivery of marijuana qualify as prior offenses to trigger the 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for a current conviction for class A felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.
State v. Ringsrud , 2002 ND 17, 642 N.W.2d 532
Judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3).
State v. Heitzmann , 2001 ND 136, 632 N.W.2d 1
There is no automatic-search rule for companions of an arrestee.
If an outside clothing pat-down search reveals the presence of an object of a size and density that reasonably suggests the object might be a weapon, the searching officer is entitled to continue the search to the inner garments where the object is located in order to determine whether the object is in fact a weapon.
A more intrusive Terry search may be constitutionally permissible when the detainee attempts to prevent an officer from performing an effective pat-down.
Officers are entitled to use the forcible means reasonably necessary to effectuate the detentive goals of investigation, maintenance of the status quo, or officer safety.
State v. Abnar , 2001 ND 107, 629 N.W.2d 585
Judgments of conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Duchene , 2001 ND 66, 624 N.W.2d 668
Misleading statements made knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard are stricken from an affidavit in support of search warrant, and the affidavit's remaining contents are examined to determine whether that information is sufficient to establish probable cause.
State v. Schmitt , 2001 ND 57, 623 N.W.2d 409
If a court finds false statements in an affidavit supporting a search warrant, the court must find whether those statements were included intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and must evaluate probable cause accordingly.
The mere recitation of testimony is not equivalent to a finding of fact.
Conclusory findings of fact which state a party has failed in the burden of proof are inadequate.
State v. Keeney , 2001 ND 42, 625 N.W.2d 264
Conviction for delivery of a controlled substance is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Gehring , 2000 ND 199, 622 N.W.2d 432
Denial of a suppression motion and judgment entered on a conditional guilty plea are summarily affirmed. N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Mora , 2000 ND 179, 617 N.W.2d 478
A defect in alleging prior convictions in an information is a harmless error when the defendant had actual knowledge of the convictions upon which the State relied to impose the mandatory sentence.
State v. Gregg , 2000 ND 154, 615 N.W.2d 515
Generally, evidence obtained as a result of illegally acquired evidence must be suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Contemporaneous with the lawful arrest of an automobile occupant, the officer may search the passenger compartment.
An automobile may be searched without a warrant, based on probable cause to believe the automobile contains articles subject to seizure.
An impounded vehicle may be inventoried as a routine caretaking procedure, rather than for investigation.
State v. Thieling , 2000 ND 106, 611 N.W.2d 861
To issue a search warrant, a magistrate must have a substantial basis for concluding the contraband or evidence sought probably will be found in the place to be searched.
Where there is merely information which may cause suspicion and warrant further investigation, there is not probable cause to search.
State v. Keyes , 2000 ND 83, 609 N.W.2d 428
A defendant's constitutional right to confront a witness is satisfied when the defendant has had an opportunity for an effective cross-examination of the witness.
A comment on the defendant's silence at trial violates the defendant's right against self- incrimination.
State v. Serr , 2000 ND 76, 617 N.W.2d 131
Convictions for possession of controlled substances with the intent to deliver summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Farok , 2000 ND 48, 609 N.W.2d 455
Order denying withdrawal of guilty plea summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Gonzalez , 2000 ND 32, 606 N.W.2d 873
A conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance cannot be based solely upon proof of a buyer-seller relationship.
State v. Koble , 2000 ND 29, 606 N.W.2d 521
The N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-36 statutory promptness requirement does not apply to N.D.C.C. ch. 29-31.1 civil forfeitures.
State v. Velasquez , 1999 ND 217, 602 N.W.2d 693
A demand for change of judge made more than ten days after notice of assignment of judge is untimely.
A court may order restitution paid to a government drug task force.
The defendant's right to be confronted with witnesses is not violated when defendant's counsel is given ample opportunity to expose weaknesses in the witness's testimony.
State v. Freed , 1999 ND 185, 599 N.W.2d 858
A convict challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction entered on a jury verdict must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt.
Whether to sever offenses for trial is left to the discretion of the trial court.
State v. Wanzek , 1999 ND 163, 598 N.W.2d 811
The passenger compartment of a vehicle voluntarily exited by an arrestee immediately prior to arrest is subject to search without a warrant.
State v. Smith , 1999 ND 109, 595 N.W.2d 565
Improper closing arguments by the State do not necessarily affect a defendant's right to a fair trial when the district court gives a curative instruction.
Failure to give defendant's requested jury instruction is not error if the instruction given adequately advises the jury of the law.
An unobjected-to jury instruction on conspiracy is not reversible error.
State v. Evans , 1999 ND 70, 593 N.W.2d 336
A prosecutor's unobjected to jury argument is not reversible unless it is obvious error affecting a defendant's substantial rights.
During closing argument, counsel cannot rely or comment on facts not in evidence.
A prosecutor's statements of fact to the jury which are not warranted by the evidence are improper and are presumed to be prejudicial unless harmless in themselves.
State v. DeCoteau , 1999 ND 77, 592 N.W.2d 579
The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement exists only when there is probable cause and an emergency situation requiring swift action by police to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.
State v. Jones , 1999 ND 61, 591 N.W.2d 135
When a defendant is charged in a single information with two counts of delivery of a controlled substance for two separate incidents, the mandatory minimum sentence for a second offense under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23(1)(a)(2) applies to the second count.
State v. Tester , 1999 ND 60, 592 N.W.2d 515
There must be a nexus between the contraband sought and the place to be searched.
Entrapment is a question of fact for the jury, and is not appropriately raised in a motion to dismiss.
State v. Van Beek , 1999 ND 53, 591 N.W.2d 112
An order deferring imposition of sentence is appealable.
Probable cause is not established for a no-knock search warrant where the reviewing court is given information indicating nothing more than probable cause an easily disposable drug is located in a suspect's residence; rather, officers must have some particularized basis for their suspicion drugs will be disposed of or destroyed if their presence is announced.
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a no-knock warrant was issued on a per-se basis prior to State v. Herrick, 1997 ND 155, 567 N.W.2d 336.
State v. Overby , 1999 ND 47, 590 N.W.2d 703
A warrantless search preceding arrest is a valid search incident to arrest provided probable cause to arrest existed before the search and the arrest and search are substantially contemporaneous.
The odor of marijuana emanating from a suspect's vehicle provides probable cause to make a warrantless arrest of the suspect, where the suspect is alone in his vehicle when he is stopped, no other vehicles or people are in the vicinity, the vehicle's door is open as the officer approaches, and the officer is well-trained in identifying the odor of marijuana.
State v. Hughes , 1999 ND 24, 589 N.W.2d 912
A no-knock warrant is unreasonable when there are no exigent circumstances justifying it.
Applying federal law, evidence obtained in violation of knock-and-announce requirements may be admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
State v. Johnson , 1999 ND 33, 590 N.W.2d 192
Probable cause for a no-knock search warrant may be established by substantial evidence of drug use and gun possession by a known dangerous person.
When the issuing magistrate had sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search, the unobjected-to review of the warrant by the issuer is permissible.
State v. Wilson , 1999 ND 34, 590 N.W.2d 202
Reasonable fees do not invalidate an informant's testimony.
A specific requested jury instruction need not be given if the court's jury instruction correctly advises the jury of the law.
A juror falling asleep does not require a new trial when the defendant did not object or ask for a mistrial, and where the court took corrective steps to prevent a recurrence.
State v. Gwyther , 1999 ND 15, 589 N.W.2d 575
An order dismissing a count in a criminal information without prejudice is appealable under N.D.C.C. 29-28-07(1).
A criminal information must contain a written statement of the essential elements of the offense charged. Commission of an overt act is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy and must be alleged in the information.
An oral ruling on a motion is not an appealable order.
State v. Smith , 1999 ND 9, 589 N.W.2d 546
A probationary search does not require reasonable suspicion and does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is reasonable.
A probation officer need not conduct a probationary search, but can assist other law enforcement officers.
State v. Herrick , 1999 ND 1, 588 N.W.2d 847
When, prior to State v. Herrick, 1997 ND 155, 567 N.W.2d 336, a no-knock search warrant was issued on a per se basis under N.D.C.C. 19.1-03.1-32(3) because drugs were alleged to be present in the place to be searched, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.
State v. Kinsella , 1998 ND 155, 583 N.W.2d 376
A state which accepts an out-of-state probationer under the Interstate Compact for Supervision of Parolees and Probationers may impose its own conditions on the probationer.
State v. Moe , 1998 ND 137, 581 N.W.2d 468
The certificate of the warden required by Art. III, 1 of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, N.D.C.C. 29-34-01, is mandatory, and the Act is not triggered if no certificate accompanies the request for speedy disposition of detainers.
Where Colorado authorities did not forward the prisoner's request for disposition of detainers to North Dakota authorities, the 180-day time limit under the Act did not commence.
The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-33, applies only where a detainer has been filed against a person incarcerated in North Dakota.
A defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial where he never expressly asserted the right and much of the seven month delay was caused by his own conduct.
State v. Webb , 1998 ND 127, 585 N.W.2d 581
Criminal Judgment and Commitment for Conspiracy to Deliver a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine) summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Rangeloff , 1998 ND 135, 580 N.W.2d 593
A defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing sufficient to require a Franks evidentiary hearing on allegations of falsity by police officers in the application for search warrants.
The Supreme Court reviews a trial court determination on the sufficiency of a Franks preliminary showing under the standard set in City of Fargo v. Thompson.
Whether probable cause exists to support the issuance of search warrants for residences is reviewed using the "totality of the circumstances" approach.
State v. Wicks , 1998 ND 76, 576 N.W.2d 518
Criminal defendant is denied right to counsel when appointed attorney withdraws on the day of trial because of a conflict of interest created by client and client is required to proceed pro se, record reflects "forced waiver" was not knowing and intelligent.
Appointed counsel may continue representation of client despite client's filing of disciplinary complaint.
State v. Wruck , 1998 ND 73, 585 N.W.2d 581
Criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
State v. Serr , 1998 ND 66, 575 N.W.2d 896
Supreme Court has jurisdiction over appeal by State from order dismissing conspiracy charges against defendants after a preliminary hearing.
Possession of a controlled substance can be an overt act indicating conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.
A conspiratorial agreement cannot be based solely upon proof of a buyer-seller relationship.
Evidence of association with other "conspirators," or presence at scene of crime, is not sufficient by itself to infer a conspiratorial agreement.
State v. Guilbert , 1998 ND 43, 576 N.W.2d 524
Trial court's order suppressing evidence and dismissing drug charges is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b).
State v. Olson , 1998 ND 41, 575 N.W.2d 649
The passenger compartment of a car may be searched incident to arrest for driving under suspension.
Under inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence from the search of a trunk will not be suppressed when the valid search of the passenger compartment would have given probable cause to search trunk.
Search warrant is supported by probable cause when items found in car provide nexus to search hotel room.
State v. Schmidt , 1998 ND 22, 576 N.W.2d 524
Conviction of three counts of drug charges summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
State v. Conley , 1998 ND 5, 574 N.W.2d 569
A prison inmate was "in custody" for Miranda purposes when interviewed by prison officials at an investigatory meeting and an adjustment committee hearing, thus making inadmissible at his later criminal trial those incriminating statements he made without benefit of Miranda warnings.
State v. Kitchen , 1997 ND 241, 572 N.W.2d 106
When the entryway to a home is impliedly open to use by the public, the residents have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the entryway.
State v. Blackhoop , 1997 ND 242, 575 N.W.2d 224
Appellant's conviction on three counts of violating N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23, delivery of controlled substances, is affirmed under Rule 35.1(a)(3) and (4), N.D.R.App.P.
State v. Hage , 1997 ND 175, 568 N.W.2d 741
Whether probable cause exists to support the issuance of a search warrant for the defendant's person and premises is reviewed using the "totality of the circumstances" approach. There is a substantial basis for the issuing magistrate's determination of probable cause based upon the circumstantial evidence presented to the magistrate.
State v. Herrick , 1997 ND 155, 567 N.W.2d 336
Trial court's order denying defendant's suppression motion is reversed and remanded. "No-knock" search warrant was issued merely because drugs might be present, in violation of Richards v. Wisconsin, 117 S.Ct. 1416 (1997). Remanded for consideration of whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be applied.
State v. Avila , 1997 ND 142, 566 N.W.2d 410
An inadequate record and lack of relevant findings by a trial court make appellate review of the court's denial of a suppression motion impossible, thus requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
State v. Eldred , 1997 ND 112, 564 N.W.2d 283
Section 62.1-02-01(2), N.D.C.C., a five-year prohibition for possessing a firearm, applies to all felonies, excluding those committed with violence and intimidation, for which a ten-year prohibition applies.
State v. LaMorie , 558 N.W.2d 329 (N.D. 1996)
The finder of fact must rely only on the evidence presented in court, and the trial court erred in making factual findings from an unauthenticated document sent to the court weeks after the hearing.
The failure to inform the magistrate of the exact date of a burglary did not invalidate a search warrant when other evidence presented demonstrated a continuing course of criminal conduct, including cashing money orders stolen in the burglary, from the time of the burglary until the warrant was sought.
State v. Murchison , 562 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 1996)
Conviction of conspiracy to deliver controlled substance summarily affirmed under Rule 35.1, N.D.R.App.
State v. Barnes , 551 N.W.2d 279 (N.D. 1996)
The trial court did not commit obvious error when it failed to instruct the jury that it could consider the defendant's intoxication to negate the culpability requirement of the charge of willfully delivering a controlled substance. There was no relevant evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant was so intoxicated as to negate her culpability.
The trial court's instructions on voluntary intoxication and entrapment adequately apprised the jury of the law and neither misled nor misinformed the jury.
An undercover agent's statements that the suspect could use some of the drugs after she delivered them did not constitute entrapment as a matter of law.
State v. Ripley , 548 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 1996)
State v. O'Rourke , 544 N.W.2d 384 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Lutze, a/k/a Lutz , 551 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Barnett , 543 N.W.2d 774 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Huffman , 542 N.W.2d 718 (N.D. 1996)
State v. LaFromboise , 542 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Murchison , 541 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Kraft , 539 N.W.2d 56 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Woehlhoff , 537 N.W.2d 543 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Eugene , 536 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Hobus , 535 N.W.2d 728 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Johnson , 531 N.W.2d 275 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Torres , 529 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Lewis , 527 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Trotter , 524 N.W.2d 601 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Brooks , 520 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Rydberg , 519 N.W.2d 306 (N.D. 1994)
State v. McKinney , 518 N.W.2d 696 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Nehring , 509 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Ackerman , 499 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Knudson , 499 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Overby , 497 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Erickson , 496 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Gilberts , 497 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Ennen , 496 N.W.2d 46 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Anton , 497 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Wilson , 488 N.W.2d 618 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Toepke , 485 N.W.2d 792 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Trudeau , 487 N.W.2d 11 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Schroeder , 485 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Birk , 484 N.W.2d 834 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Kummer , 481 N.W.2d 437 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Everson , 474 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Zearley , 468 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Wilson , 466 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Ennis , 464 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Fischer , 459 N.W.2d 818 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Dymowski , 459 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Dymowski , 458 N.W.2d 490 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Burgard , 458 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Rode , 456 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Kunkel , 455 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Rodriguez , 454 N.W.2d 726 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Huether , 453 N.W.2d 778 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Wahl , 450 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Wilson , 450 N.W.2d 422 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Schroeder , 450 N.W.2d 423 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Mische , 448 N.W.2d 412 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Shores , 444 N.W.2d 701 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Raywalt , 444 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Zearley , 444 N.W.2d 353 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Beyer , 441 N.W.2d 919 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Connery , 441 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Jimenez , 442 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Dahl , 440 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Michlitsch , 438 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Handtmann , 437 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Raywalt , 436 N.W.2d 234 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Saul , 434 N.W.2d 572 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Ringquist , 433 N.W.2d 207 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Erban , 429 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Rehling , 426 N.W.2d 6 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Welch , 426 N.W.2d 550 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Miller , 418 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Benjamin , 417 N.W.2d 838 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Ricehill , 415 N.W.2d 481 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Padgett , 410 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Langan , 410 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Kesler , 396 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Padgett , 393 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Miller , 391 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Schneider , 389 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Sakellson , 379 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Neurohr , 376 N.W.2d 805 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Thompson , 369 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Neigum , 369 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Coutts , 364 N.W.2d 88 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Bonner , 361 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Grant , 361 N.W.2d 243 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Ronngren , 361 N.W.2d 224 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Ronngren , 356 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Voeller , 356 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Mayer , 356 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Weisz , 356 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Gronlund , 356 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Denny , 351 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Flamm , 351 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Perbix , 349 N.W.2d 403 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Denny , 350 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Pronovost , 345 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Kluck , 340 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Rougemont , 340 N.W.2d 47 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Flamm , 338 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Metzner , 338 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Heart , 334 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Ennis , 334 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Morris , 331 N.W.2d 48 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Perbix , 331 N.W.2d 14 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Ballard , 328 N.W.2d 251 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Lind , 322 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Kainz , 321 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Kottenbroch , 319 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Rippley , 319 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Gelvin , 318 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Borden , 316 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Nagel , 308 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Planz , 304 N.W.2d 74 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Hoffman , 291 N.W.2d 430 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Unterseher , 289 N.W.2d 201 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Bartkowski , 290 N.W.2d 218 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Harris , 286 N.W.2d 468 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Berger , 285 N.W.2d 533 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Boushee , 284 N.W.2d 423 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Garvey , 283 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Schmeets , 278 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Folk , 278 N.W.2d 410 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Goeller , 275 N.W.2d 341 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Larson , 274 N.W.2d 884 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Larson , 271 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Fischer , 270 N.W.2d 345 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Mertens , 268 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Pfister , 264 N.W.2d 694 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Goeller , 264 N.W.2d 472 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Goeller , 263 N.W.2d 135 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Collins , 261 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Lange , 255 N.W.2d 59 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Larson , 253 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Otto , 245 N.W.2d 885 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Hilling , 219 N.W.2d 164 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Iverson , 219 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Allesi , 216 N.W.2d 805 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Allesi , 211 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Matthews , 216 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Long , 216 N.W.2d 109 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Farrell , 214 N.W.2d 503 (N.D. 1973)
State v. Flemmer , 211 N.W.2d 189 (N.D. 1973)
State v. Loucks , 209 N.W.2d 772 (N.D. 1973)
State v. Gagnon , 207 N.W.2d 260 (N.D. 1973)
State v. Schlosser , 202 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Schlosser , 200 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Julson , 202 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Mees , 196 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Binns , 194 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Perry , 182 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1971)
State v. Dove , 182 N.W.2d 297 (N.D. 1970)
State v. Dwyer , 172 N.W.2d 591 (N.D. 1969)
State v. Erdman , 170 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1969)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/08/2008