Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On May 20, 2013, a Stark County Sheriff's Deputy stopped Defendant Lee Rahier's vehicle and, subsequently, arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon, hindering law enforcement, and disorderly conduct. Rahier moved to suppress evidence alleging the law enforcement officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rahier claimed the law enforcement officer's discovery of a concealed weapon was the result of an illegal search and should be suppressed. The State opposed the motions to suppress. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motions and granted Rahier's motions. The State argued on appeal that the district court erred in finding the deputy did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Rahier. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court's decision that the arresting law enforcement officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Rahier, and the district court's decisions did not go against the manifest weight of the evidence. View "North Dakota v. Rahier" on Justia Law

Joseph Smith appealed his conviction entered on a conditional plea of guilty for driving under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Smith argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that he claims was obtained in violation of "Missouri v. McNeely," (133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013)), and his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. The Supreme Court found after review of the record that Smith consented to take the chemical breath test given by the law enforcement officer, therefore, Smith's constitutional rights were not violated as a matter of law by North Dakota's implied consent law. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Smith's motion to suppress. View "North Dakota v. Smith" on Justia Law

Three men dressed in face masks, gloves and dark clothing forcibly broke into a Grand Forks home in the early morning. The occupants, Carmen and Sherman Jones, were watching television at the time; a security system recorded surveillance of the break-in. The masked men kicked in the front door, assaulted the homeowners with wooden tire thumpers and killed the Jones's dog. The Grand Forks Police Department investigated and discovered evidence that appeared to link defendants Allen and Nathan Ratliff and Cody Boulduc to the robbery. The three men were arrested. In consolidated appeals, all three appealed their convictions of robbery, burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, theft of property, and felonious restraint. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for new trial. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for each charge and that the defendants failed to properly preserve their remaining issues on appeal. View "North Dakota v. Ratliff" on Justia Law

Joshua Cook appealed his conviction entered upon a conditional guilty plea to six counts of possession of drugs and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest. The Supreme Court dismissed Cook's appeal because he failed to comply with the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

Ronald Rogers Jr. appealed district court judgment after he conditionally pled guilty to murder and willful disturbance of a dead body. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Rogers was not in police custody when he confessed to the crimes and that his confession was not involuntary. View "North Dakota v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Jennifer Daniels appealed a district court judgment and order deferring imposition of sentence entered following Daniels' conditional plea of guilty to Possession of Alprazolam and Possession of Carisoprodol, both class C felonies. In January 2013, a Burleigh County Sheriff Deputy stopped a vehicle for expired registration. Daniels was sitting in the front passenger's seat. The deputy obtained consent from the driver to search the vehicle, and the deputy asked the occupants to step out to the front of the vehicle. The deputy did not give the occupants any other instructions and did not tell anyone to leave anything or take anything with them. Daniels exited the vehicle, but left her purse inside. While searching the vehicle, the deputy searched a purse located on the floorboard of the front passenger's seat, which belonged to Daniels. In the purse, he found an Advil container that had an assortment of pills in it. The Supreme Court held the deputy's warrantless search of Daniels' purse was not justified under the consent exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and order deferring imposition of sentence and denial of Daniels' motion to suppress, and remanded with instructions to allow Daniels to withdraw her conditional guilty pleas. View "North Dakota v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Michael Cone appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. In July 2012, the State charged Cone with aggravated assault and with felonious restraint, alleging he punched the complainant in the face and broke her nose. Cone argued the district court erred in denying his requested remedy for a discovery violation, the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior criminal convictions, the State committed prosecutorial misconduct and the court erred in allowing the State to comment on attorney-client privilege. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Cone" on Justia Law

Derek Pokrzywinski appeals the district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for three years. Pokrzywinski was in a single vehicle motorcycle crash. On Deputy Richard Sherlock's arrival, he observed Pokrzywinski on a backboard being loaded on an ambulance stretcher. While in the ambulance, Deputy Sherlock asked Pokrzywinski what happened, and Pokrzywinski responded that "he had a couple beers, hit a pothole and lost control of his motorcycle." A hearing officer concluded the Report and Notice form included sufficient information regarding the arresting officer's reasonable grounds to believe Pokrzywinski had been driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and Pokrzywinski effectively refused consent to the first request for a blood test. Finding no error in the Department's decision to suspend Pokrzywinski's license, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pokrzywinski v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Ronald McCoy appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation decision suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. The Supreme Court affirmed because McCoy consented to take a chemical breath test given by the law enforcement officer, and his constitutional rights were not violated as a matter of law by North Dakota's implied consent law. View "McCoy v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Joseph Herrman appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision revoking his driving privileges for one year. Herrman was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The Department revoked his license for refusing to take the chemical breath test. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension. View "Herrman v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law