Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Tyler Asbach appealed the district court's criminal judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal and seeking review of the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Asbach argued the district court erred in its amended order in concluding evidence found when his suitcase was searched was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Specifically, he claimed the police officer was acting in bad faith to accelerate discovery of the challenged evidence by exceeding the scope of consent to search. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Asbach" on Justia Law

Damon White Bird appeals an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013 the State charged White Bird with attempted murder, a class A felony; two counts of felonious restraint, class C felonies; tampering with physical evidence, a class A misdemeanor; and aggravated assault, a class C felony. White Bird represented himself at trial with limited assistance of standby counsel. A jury found White Bird guilty on all five counts. Represented by counsel, White Bird appealed the criminal judgment, arguing he was not competent to waive his right to counsel at trial. In 2015 this Court affirmed the criminal judgment, concluding White Bird was competent to waive his right to counsel. White Bird applied for post-conviction relief arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error in the denial of post-conviction relief, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "White Bird v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Allen Ratliff appealed from an order dismissing his application for postconviction relief. A jury found Ratliff and two others guilty of robbery, burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, theft of property, and felonious restraint in connection with an April 2012 home invasion in Grand Forks. Ratliff filed an application for postconviction relief alleging numerous grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing during which Ratliff, his sister, his trial attorney, and the prosecutor testified, the district court in a 10-page decision denied the application. "[B]ecause the district court's decision denying the application is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous," the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ratliff v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order on remand denying the forfeiture of $16,420 in U.S. currency seized by law enforcement during a traffic stop. Because the district court's order relied on an erroneous application of the law and was not supported by the evidence, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the State's motion to forfeit the money. View "North Dakota v. Horning" on Justia Law

Curtis Francis and another man, Michael Dax, were collecting signatures near the Jamestown Civic Center, a designated polling place, on voting day. They were doing so in an effort to get an initiated measure regarding environmental concerns placed on the next ballot. While they were collecting signatures, it began to rain. They moved under a canopy covering an entrance to the polling place. They continued collecting signatures as individuals walked past them to vote. One voter told an election clerk about Francis and Dax's activities. The clerk informed the county auditor. The auditor, along with a plain-clothed security officer, went to speak with Francis and Dax. They informed the two it was illegal to collect signatures within 100 feet of a polling place. Dax began arguing with the auditor; Francis continued collecting signatures. A police officer was dispatched. The officer confiscated the signatures, but did not arrest Francis or Dax. After the incident, the officer forwarded a report to the county prosecutor. The prosecutor filed charges against Francis for collecting signatures within 100 feet of an open polling place. Francis appealed after conditionally pleading guilty to gathering signatures within 100 feet of a polling place. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the electioneering law he was charged under did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was a reasonable restriction on the North Dakota Constitution's initiated ballot measure provision. The Court also concluded Francis has failed to show he was selectively prosecuted. View "North Dakota v. Francis" on Justia Law

David Hieb appealed the district court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2005, Hieb was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. The information was amended to include an additional charge of murder. The information was amended a second time to dismiss the murder charge. Hieb pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder. Hieb argued his conviction should have been reversed because he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit felony murder which was not a cognizable offense. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, concluding Hieb's application for relief was untimely. View "Hieb v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A jury found Nathan Ratliff guilty of robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, theft of property, and felonious restraint. Ratliff filed an application for post-conviction relief in October 2014. Ratliff was appointed counsel, and counsel filed a supplemental application. The district court held a hearing and dismissed Ratliff's application. Ratliff appealed the district court's dismissal, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and he was improperly sentenced as an habitual offender. Finding no merit to Ratliff's arguments that he received constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel or that he was improperly sentenced, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying post-conviction relief. View "Ratliff v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

John Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence obtained in a traffic stop resulting in his arrest for driving under the influence. According to testimony at the suppression hearing, a McLean County Sheriff's deputy responded to reported drug use in a Turtle Lake alley. The deputy testified the alley was paved and maintained by the City of Turtle Lake. A second deputy testified the alley was paved and gravel in part, but was nonetheless public. Upon surveiling the area, the first deputy testified to observing a vehicle exit the alley without signaling before turning. Believing this failure was a traffic violation, the deputy radioed the second deputy to stop the vehicle. After executing the stop, the second deputy arrested Hirschkorn. Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop, arguing no reasonable suspicion justified the stop because the law does not require drivers to signal prior to exiting alleys. Because Hirschkorn's failure to signal was not a traffic violation, the district court concluded no reasonable suspicion justified the traffic stop. The court accordingly suppressed evidence resulting from the stop. On appeal, the State argued the district court erred in suppressing evidence from the traffic stop because the court misinterpreted the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the State's argument that Hirschkorn and the district court misinterpreted the law, and reversed the district court's suppression order. View "North Dakota v. Hirschkorn" on Justia Law

According to a police affidavit, officers responding to a reported disturbance observed one man holding another man in a headlock and repeatedly punching his face. The men were identified as defendant-appellant Benjamin Clayton and his father, respectively. As a result of the fight, both men suffered facial injuries. Clayton's father also suffered a broken ankle, which required corrective medical care. After charging Clayton with aggravated assault, the State amended its charge to simple assault and Clayton pled guilty. After the district court entered an according criminal judgment, the State moved to amend the judgment to include restitution of $24,897.16 for medical expenses associated with the ankle injury. Clayton appealed the judgment ordering him to pay $24,897.16 in restitution. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Clayton" on Justia Law

According to S.S.'s testimony, she invited defendant-appellant Brandon Carlson to her residence to watch a movie with her and T.P. During the movie, both S.S. and T.P. fell asleep. According to T.P.'s testimony, she awoke to Carlson having sex with her. Afterwards, S.S. testified she awoke to Carlson forcing her hand on his penis and performing a sexual act. Based on these allegations, the State charged Carlson with two counts of gross sexual imposition. Carlson appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Carlson" on Justia Law