State v. Dudley, No. 20090293.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtKAPSNER, Justice
Citation2010 ND 39,779 NW 2d 369
Decision Date16 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 20090293.
PartiesSTATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Ballam Hezeakiah DUDLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
779 N.W.2d 369

2010 ND 39

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Ballam Hezeakiah DUDLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20090293.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

March 16, 2010.


Gary E. Euren (argued), Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

779 NW 2d 370

Kurt Porter (argued), appearing under the Rule on the Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, and Steven M. Light (appeared), Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.

KAPSNER, Justice.

¶ 1 Ballam Dudley appeals from a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea. We hold the district court did not err by denying Dudley's motion to suppress because the North Dakota Highway Patrol trooper reasonably suspected the vehicle contained contraband and sufficient probable cause existed to justify the warrantless searches. We affirm the judgment.

I.

¶ 2 On the night of November 3, 2008, a North Dakota Highway Patrol trooper stopped a vehicle driven by Dudley on Interstate 94 in Fargo. The trooper stopped the vehicle because he believed its window tint was too dark and violated state law. The trooper approached Dudley's vehicle on the passenger side and, upon peering into it with the aid of a flashlight, noticed small pieces of a green leafy substance on the center console. The trooper asked Dudley to accompany him back to the patrol vehicle, where he checked Dudley's driver's license. The check indicated Dudley's license had been suspended, and the trooper placed Dudley under arrest for driving under suspension. The trooper then re-approached Dudley's vehicle and asked the passenger to sit in his patrol vehicle while he conducted a search. The trooper searched the vehicle and found three one-pound bags of marijuana in the trunk, as well as marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the passenger's purse. After arresting the passenger for possession of marijuana, the trooper impounded Dudley's vehicle. The trooper did not work for the next few days, but re-searched the vehicle in the impound lot on his first day back at work. During the second search, the trooper found a metal can with a false opening that smelled like marijuana.

¶ 3 The State charged Dudley with driving under suspension and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver or manufacture. Dudley filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of the vehicle following the traffic stop and the subsequent search in the impound lot. Dudley argued the trooper did not have probable cause to justify the searches. At a hearing on the motion, the trooper testified: "While I was at the vehicle, in the center console, gear shift area, I seen what appeared to be marijuana residue, little green leaves, kind of scattered throughout that area there." The trooper stated he believed the leaves were marijuana because "if you look closely at marijuana leaves, they almost kind of glisten, have got some type of crystalize to it, I guess. That's what I saw that night." Although the stop took place at night, the trooper stated he could see inside the vehicle with the aid of his flashlight, plus "I-94 is lit up very well with large skylights continuously down the highway."

¶ 4 Dudley argued the trooper did not have probable cause to search the vehicle because he did not reasonably suspect the vehicle contained contraband. The district court denied Dudley's motion. The district court found: "The Trooper reasonably believed, given the totality of the circumstances, that the little, green, leafy particles around the gear shifter and center console were marijuana and he reasonably believed that more marijuana and contraband would be concealed in the car." Therefore, the district court concluded the trooper had probable cause to search the entire vehicle,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Gefroh, No. 20100391.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • August 15, 2011
    ...has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the search falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369 (citing State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶ 23, 615 N.W.2d 515). A recognized exception to the requirement is the automobile......
  • State v. Lelm, 20200236
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 8, 2021
    ...officer that the automobile contains articles which are subject to seizure, the search is valid. Reis , at ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Dudley , 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369 ) (internal quotations omitted). A drug-sniffing dog indicating the presence of a controlled substance in a vehicle esta......
  • State v. Reis, Nos. 20130192
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 13, 2014
    ...known to the officer that the automobile contains articles which are subject to seizure, the search is valid.”State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369 (quoting State v. Zwicke, 2009 ND 129, ¶ 9, 767 N.W.2d 869) (citations omitted). “[I]n determining whether a law enforcement officer......
  • State v. Lelm, No. 20200236
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 8, 2021
    ...the officer that the automobile contains articles which are subject to seizure, the search is valid.Reis, at ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369) (internal quotations omitted). A drug-sniffing dog indicating the presence of aPage 5 controlled substance in a vehicl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Gefroh, No. 20100391.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • August 15, 2011
    ...has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the search falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369 (citing State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶ 23, 615 N.W.2d 515). A recognized exception to the requirement is the automobile......
  • State v. Lelm, 20200236
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 8, 2021
    ...officer that the automobile contains articles which are subject to seizure, the search is valid. Reis , at ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Dudley , 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369 ) (internal quotations omitted). A drug-sniffing dog indicating the presence of a controlled substance in a vehicle esta......
  • State v. Reis, Nos. 20130192
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 13, 2014
    ...known to the officer that the automobile contains articles which are subject to seizure, the search is valid.”State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369 (quoting State v. Zwicke, 2009 ND 129, ¶ 9, 767 N.W.2d 869) (citations omitted). “[I]n determining whether a law enforcement officer......
  • State v. Lelm, No. 20200236
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 8, 2021
    ...the officer that the automobile contains articles which are subject to seizure, the search is valid.Reis, at ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39, ¶ 7, 779 N.W.2d 369) (internal quotations omitted). A drug-sniffing dog indicating the presence of aPage 5 controlled substance in a vehicl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT