Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Jessica Broom appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Bismarck Police Officers Jones and Girodat were on patrol, stopped at a railroad crossing waiting for a train to pass. The officers checked the license plate of the red 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix in front of them. The license plate check revealed the car was stolen, and once the train passed, the officers stopped the vehicle. Because the stop was a "felony, high-risk" stop, the officers approached the stolen vehicle with their handguns out. Officer Jones approached the driver's side. Officer Girodat approached the passenger side. The officers repeatedly instructed the occupants to get their hands up, and the driver complied immediately. The passenger, who the officers recognized from previous drug arrests as Jessica Broom, did not comply with the officers' orders. Broom moved side to side in the vehicle, made furtive movements in the passenger compartment, and did not put her hands up. Officer Jones took the driver into custody while Officer Girodat detained Broom after removing her from the vehicle. Other officers arrived at the scene and a female officer, Officer Gallagher, approached as Broom was being handcuffed. Officers Jones and Girodat told Officer Gallagher that Broom was known to conceal items in her orifices, had not complied with commands, and she appeared to be moving around in the vehicle after the stop. As Officer Gallagher conducted a pat-down search of Broom's person, she felt a large, soft bulge in Broom's bra which Broom claimed was cash. Officer Gallagher retrieved the money from the bra to verify Broom's claim. In addition to a wad of money, Officer Gallagher discovered a baggie filled with several other baggies, a small glass vial, and a rolled-up ten dollar bill. Officer Gallagher put Broom in the back of her police car and placed her under arrest. In response to her motion to suppress the evidence from that search, the district court determined: "the uncertainty of what Broom was concealing, together with the facts that Broom was discovered in a stolen vehicle, that Broom had failed to comply with their lawful commands and continued to make furtive actions after being directly told to stop doing the same, her extreme anxiety and nervousness, in addition to the officer's knowledge of Broom's criminal history and ability to furtively conceal items on and in her body, they had reasonable grounds to search for possible weapons and to determine what was concealed in her bra." The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that the search of Broom, while she was handcuffed, away from the vehicle, with a "soft" or "squishy" bulge in her bra was not enough to suggest it was "of the size and density that might be a weapon justifying a more intrusive search." The Court therefore concluded the police officer's invasive search of Broom's person violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, section 8. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Broom" on Justia Law

In April 2017, Deputy Taylor Schiller was patrolling in an area north of Rugby, North Dakota, looking for a brown or tan Ford SUV that had been reported stolen. Deputy Schiller saw a vehicle matching that description. The SUV was actually maroon, but Deputy Schiller testified it initially appeared to be tan because it was covered with dirt and road dust. This vehicle pulled over and came to a stop without a signal to stop from Deputy Schiller. Deputy Schiller pulled over as well, exited his squad car, and attempted to contact the driver. Before he made contact with the driver, the SUV drove away. Deputy Schiller was unable to read the license plate number of the SUV at that time. Deputy Schiller returned to his car and activated his emergency lights. After the SUV again pulled over, Deputy Schiller exited his vehicle to make contact with the driver. Prior to making contact, he read the license plate number and noted that it did not match the license plate number of the stolen SUV. As he continued to approach the vehicle, Deputy Schiller recognized the driver as defendant Sandon Erickson. Because of their prior contacts, he knew Erickson had a suspended license. Deputy Schiller also saw an open case of Keystone Light beer in the front-seat passenger side of Erickson's vehicle. He then informed Erickson that he had stopped him pursuant to a stolen vehicle investigation. Deputy Schiller testified he could detect the odor of alcohol, and he arrested Erickson for driving under the influence. Erickson moved to suppress evidence obtained after the deputy read the plate and ruled out the vehicle as stolen. The district court denied Erickson's motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that extension of the stop for an explanation did not transform the stop into an unconstitutional seizure. View "North Dakota v. Erickson" on Justia Law

J. Erin Rourke appealed a district court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief. The State charged Rourke with gross sexual imposition and corruption or solicitation of minors. Following a trial held in May 2016, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the gross sexual imposition charge and a verdict of not guilty as to the corruption or solicitation of minors charge. Rourke appealed his conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed because Rourke failed to preserve his sufficiency of the evidence argument for appeal by failing to move for a judgment of acquittal at trial under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, and Rourke made no argument that an obvious error occurred, which was an exception to the requirement to move for acquittal. Rourke argued the trial court erred by denying his application for post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no such ineffective assistance, the Supreme Court affirmed denial of relief. View "Rourke v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Brandon Morel appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief in which he asked the district court to vacate a criminal conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test in 2014. In August 2014, Morel was arrested and cited for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and refusal to submit to a chemical test. Morel moved to dismiss the refusal charge on the basis that the refusal statute was unconstitutional. The district court ruled the refusal statute was not unconstitutional. In August 2015, the North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed Morel's judgment. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) that "motorists cannot be deemed to have consented to submit to a blood test on pain of committing a criminal offense." In May 2017, Morel filed an application for post-conviction relief, asking the district court to vacate his criminal conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test. Morel argued the Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield should have been applied retroactively. The district court denied his application, finding Birchfield was a new federal rule of criminal procedure that did not apply retroactively. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding Birchfield applied retroactively to this case. View "Morel v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Randy Jensen appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In February 2016, Jensen was charged in district court case 09-2016-CR-537 with possession of methamphetamine. Gordon Dexheimer was appointed as counsel in that matter. Attorney Ross Brandborg represented Jensen in several other criminal cases. Dexheimer, Brandborg, and the State reached a "global resolution" to resolve all of Jensen's cases. In May 2016, Jensen wrote a letter requesting new counsel in 09-2016-CR-537. Dexheimer moved to withdraw from the case, and a hearing was held. The district court allowed Dexheimer to withdraw, and Brandborg, who was present at the hearing, represented Jensen on all of his matters. After 09-2016-CR-537 was called, the district court incorrectly stated that the preliminary hearing had already taken place. The district court then asked for Jensen's plea. Jensen pleaded guilty and was sentenced. In December 2016, Jensen applied for post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and failure to provide a preliminary hearing. At the post-conviction hearing, Brandborg testified to his representation. Jensen did not present evidence. The district court entered an order denying Jensen's application. On appeal, Jensen argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The right to a preliminary hearing is waived when a defendant fails to raise the issue at an arraignment or change of plea hearing and proceeds to plead guilty. After review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court found Because the district court did not err by denying Jensen's application for post-conviction relief, and affirmed. View "Jensen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Courtney Krueger appealed a judgment affirming a decision of the Department of Transportation suspending his driving privileges for two years. Because the Traill County sheriff's deputy had jurisdiction to make the arrest in Grand Forks County and Krueger's statutory rights and constitutional rights were not violated by the deputy's administration of three breath tests, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Krueger v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

In 2007, Tilmer Everett was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. In August 2015, the district court barred Everett from future filings without the court's permission. Everett appealed a district court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief based on alleged newly discovered evidence. Everett argued the district court erred in denying his petition and denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. Because Everett was subject to an order prohibiting him from filing new or additional post-conviction relief claims, the North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court's current order as denying Everett leave to file additional motions. The Court held orders denying leave to file were not appealable. Therefore, the Court dismissed Everett's appeal. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Joshua Cook appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of heroin, possession of methadone, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence after proper foundation was laid, the court did not abuse its discretion by not granting a departure from the mandatory minimum sentence, and the court did not err in considering Cook's prior convictions when sentencing. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

Richie Wilder appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and from an order partially granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Wilder argued his conviction had to be reversed and he was entitled to a new trial because his constitutional right to remain silent was violated by the State's improper comments during closing argument. He alternatively argued his sentence was illegal and should be amended because the district court erred by ordering him to have no contact with his children until they turn 18 years old. A comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The statutory sentencing provisions did not authorize the sentencing court to order no contact as part of a prison sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to Wilder's conviction, reversed the judgment as to his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Wilder" on Justia Law

In 2015, Amira Gunn and Calvin Till communicated in private conversations on MeetMe.com, a social networking website. Gunn and Till exchanged more than 700 messages between November 11 and 13. In a portion of the conversations, Gunn gave explicit and lewd instructions to Till on how to groom and sexually assault his young daughter and how to abduct and sexually assault Till's two neighbor children. During an interview with police, Gunn admitted to having the conversations with Till, acknowledging she knew of Till's sexual fetish for children including his own daughter. Gunn stated she believed Till's daughter was approximately six years old. Gunn characterized the conversations with Till as role-playing. Gunn was ultimately convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). At trial, a police detective testified he believed the initial conversations between Gunn and Till involved role-playing. The detective testified he believed the role-playing eventually ceased and Gunn and Till reassumed their own identities. The detective testified that later in the conversations Till relayed to Gunn that he was sexually assaulting his daughter in real-time. Gunn argued on appeal of her conviction and sentence there was no evidence of a victim in this case: because Till's daughter was not present during the online conversations and that the neighbor children could have been imaginary, thus no victim. Gunn also claimed that since Till did not commit the crime of gross sexual imposition, there was no evidence that Gunn aided him in any way. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in this matter, and affirmed Gunn’s conviction and sentence. View "North Dakota v. Gunn" on Justia Law