Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Jacob Webster appealed after a jury returned a general verdict finding him guilty of driving under the influence. Because a driver may not be criminally convicted for refusing a warrantless blood test incident to arrest, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the general verdict finding Webster guilty of driving under the influence under an instruction alternatively criminalizing the refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test incident to arrest was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court concluded Webster was not entitled to a jury instruction on the legal requirements for a law enforcement officer to request a preliminary onsite breath screening test. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Webster" on Justia Law

Jessica Belgarde appealed after a jury found her guilty of shoplifting. Belgarde notified the State of her intent to present her minor child as an alibi witness two weeks before trial and 112 days after the deadline set by the district court in its pretrial scheduling order. The issue on appeal was whether a district court abuses its discretion by excluding alibi testimony under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12.1 without first finding prejudice to the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "North Dakota v. Belgarde" on Justia Law

Caren Ashby was arrested for several drug related offenses after a traffic stop in Wells County in 2015. Caren Ashby moved to suppress all evidence seized from the traffic stop, and the State opposed the motion. Ashby challenged the validity of the traffic stop and argued all evidence uncovered should be suppressed. The State argued the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion or was valid as a community caretaking function. The State appealed when the district court granted Ashby's motion to suppress the evidence seized after the stop. Suppression was based on the district court's conclusion that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. After review, the Supreme Court concluded, under the totality of the circumstances, the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the district court erred when it granted Ashby's motion to suppress evidence. The Court therefore reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Ashby" on Justia Law

Barry Roe appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief in which he alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel from two attorneys who represented him at different stages of his criminal case. The State charged Roe with two counts of gross sexual imposition. The State's evidence included forensic interview statements by three children, two of whom alleged sexual abuse by Roe. During the preliminary hearing, a detective testified to what the children said at the interviews. The court found probable cause supported both counts, and the case was set for trial. Prior to trial, substitute counsel was appointed to represent Roe. During the trial, one of the children partially recanted her sexual abuse allegation. She altered her story to say Roe had touched her inner thigh rather than her vaginal area. A jury found Roe guilty of both charges. Roe later filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing his preliminary hearing attorney and his trial attorney ineffectively represented him. The district court denied his application, finding neither attorney's representation prejudiced Roe. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Roe was not prejudiced by his counsels' representation. View "Roe v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2015, officers executed a probation search at the residence of Keirsten Thomas. While speaking with officers, Thomas indicated some paint in the home belonged to Jeremy Kaul. As officers continued their search, officers heard movement of the door handle. The door to the residence had been locked after the officers entered and commenced the search. Hearing the noise, an officer opened the door to see Kaul standing in the doorway. The officer identified himself and told Kaul he was going to be detained because they were doing a probation search. Kaul entered the apartment and officers spoke with him and asked for consent to search his person and vehicle. Kaul consented to both and officers searched his person and vehicle, but did not find any contraband. Kaul was asked to consent to a search of his backpack which he refused. Officers requested a K-9 unit to conduct a sniff of Kaul's backpack because he was acting "extremely nervous," and the officer knew Kaul to be a "methamphetamine user, [and] a marijuana user." Roughly fifteen minutes later, the K-9 unit arrived and the dog alerted on Kaul's backpack. Kaul was asked for consent to search his backpack again, and he again refused. Officers seized the backpack, told Kaul he could leave, and Kaul left. Officers applied for and were granted a search warrant for Kaul's backpack. Officers found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Kaul's backpack when they executed the search warrant. Kaul was charged with possession of methamphetamine, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance. Kaul filed a motion to suppress evidence, and the State opposed the motion. The district court held a hearing on the suppression motion at which an officer testified. After both parties questioned the officer, the district court asked several of its own questions. After post-hearing briefs, the district court granted Kaul's motion to suppress. The State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err by concluding the factors justifying the seizure of occupants contemporaneously with execution of a valid search warrant did not apply to Kaul's initial seizure. The record indicated Kaul was not an occupant of the residence belonging to the individual who was the subject of the probationary search. “At most, Kaul was a frequent visitor.” Furthermore, the Court found the district court did not err in holding there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion to support the continued detention of Kaul while waiting for the K-9 unit. View "North Dakota v. Kaul" on Justia Law

Jesse White appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found he was guilty of possession of certain materials prohibited. White was on supervised probation when his residence was searched. His probation conditions required him to submit to a search of his person, vehicle or residence as requested by his probation officer. a probation officer searched White's residence after police officers received a tip from White's girlfriend. White's girlfriend told officers that she discovered images of clothed, young girls in provocative positions and that White was uploading pictures to a cell phone with no service. The probation officer and police officers went to White's residence where the probation officer informed White of the reason for searching his residence and that they were interested in images on any computers or phones. After review of this matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the probation search of White's cell phones did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights and sufficient evidence supported his conviction. View "North Dakota v. White" on Justia Law

Fritz Opp was stopped for speeding by a Grand Forks police officer in the early morning hours of October 30, 2015. After failing field sobriety tests, Opp was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting officer testified he asked Opp multiple times to take the intoxilyzer test and Opp never agreed to take it. The officer charged Opp with refusing to submit to chemical testing. Opp filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. The district court entered an order denying Opp's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One jury trial was held on both charges. The jury found Opp guilty of refusing to submit to a chemical test and not guilty of driving under the influence. Opp filed a motion for a new trial, arguing he was entitled to separate trials for each of the charges. The district court entered an order denying Opp's motion for a new trial. Opp appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Grand Forks v. Opp" on Justia Law

Adam Hamilton appeals from the district court judgment denying him post-conviction relief. Hamilton pled guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Hamilton argued on appeal of the conviction and sentence that the district court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief because he did not have the ability at the hearing to communicate and transmit documents with his attorney. Hamilton also argued the district court erred in denying his transport order because he had a right to be personally present at the hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hamilton v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Steven Gibson entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court rejected his claim that the State violated his right to a speedy trial. The issue his case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the ninety-day period under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 began when Gibson gave his speedy trial request to the prison for mailing or whether it began when the district court and the state's attorney received Gibson's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the ninety-day period under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 began when the district court and the state's attorney received Gibson's request for a speedy trial and thus that Gibson's trial was scheduled within ninety days. View "North Dakota v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Michael Cox appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pled guilty to assault. Cox argued he did not receive all of the discovery he requested and he could not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea without viewing all of the relevant information. Cox requested the Supreme Court remand his case for the district court to determine whether he was entitled to withdraw his plea. Finding that Cox appealed the criminal judgment, but he did not raise any issues related to the criminal judgment on appeal. Rather, Cox only requested that this case be remanded to the district court to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court neither filed nor ruled on those motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Cox" on Justia Law