State v. Johnson
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Lucas Michael Johnson, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : DRUGS/CONTRABAND
- Appeal From
Case No. 2018-CR-01003
South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
James S. Hill
Parties' Statement of Issues
The district court erred by failing to grant Mr. Johnson's motion to suppress in response to illegal seizure which was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Whether the law enforcement officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Johnson for traffic offenses.
Lucas Michael Johnson appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia.
In February 2018, Johnson was charged with two drug-related offenses after officers pulled him over, performed a search of his car, and located drugs and drug paraphernalia. Before the scheduled trial, Johnson moved to suppress all evidence seized from his car during the search, claiming he was unlawfully seized without reasonable and articulable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. The State opposed Johnson’s motion and a hearing was held where one of the law enforcement officers present during Johnson’s stop testified. During the hearing, the officer testified that before stopping Johnson, he observed Johnson’s vehicle driving “a little bit over the speed limit,” and later pulling off the road onto the shoulder of the roadway without signaling. Following the hearing, the district court entered an order denying Johnson’s motion to suppress, finding the officer’s testimony that he observed two traffic violations gave the officers reasonable and articulable suspicion Johnson had violated the law, thereby supporting an investigatory stop.
On appeal, Johnson argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because the traffic violations observed by the testifying officer would not give a reasonable officer an objective manifestation that Johnson was about to be engaged in unlawful activity or reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||09/17/2018||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 09/17/2018|
|2||09/17/2018||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 09/18/2018|
|3||09/17/2018||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||09/17/2018||Notice served on Yancy B. Cottrill and Derek Steiner|
|5||10/16/2018||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED OCTOBER 15, 2018 (ENTRY NOS. 1 - 46)(not rec'd #20)|
|6||11/07/2018||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED AUGUST 13, 2018 & C.O.S.|
|7||12/26/2018||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|9||12/27/2018||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted : 01/16/2019|
|11||01/14/2019||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|13||01/14/2019||E-FILED APPENDIX (PDF)|
|14||01/22/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB back form Central Duplicating|
|15||01/22/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA back from Central Duplicating|
|17||01/22/2019||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|20||01/25/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB back from Central Duplicating|
|21||01/25/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEA back from Central Duplicating|
|22||01/28/2019||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB and ATA through IDB|
|23||02/19/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|24||02/25/2019||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for AEB|