State v. Hollis
| Decision Date | 27 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180368,20180368 |
| Citation | 930 N.W.2d 171 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Alexander James HOLLIS, Defendant and Appellant |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Julie A. Lawyer, Burleigh County State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Yancy B. Cottrill, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Alexander Hollis appealed from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence, which we treat as an appeal from the subsequently entered criminal judgment. Hollis argues the evidence should be suppressed because he was subject to an illegal pat-down search and he was illegally seized when he was taken to the county detention center for detoxification. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] In April 2018, Bismarck Police Officer Michael Mehrer responded to a call about a loud verbal dispute between a man and a woman in the area of Washington Court. When Mehrer arrived at the scene where the disturbance reportedly occurred, Hollis was standing on the sidewalk. Mehrer testified Hollis had his hands in his pockets, Mehrer requested Hollis to remove his hands from his pockets, and Hollis complied. Mehrer testified Hollis later put his hands back in his pockets, and Mehrer requested he remove them a second time. Mehrer testified Hollis failed to respond to his questions, and Hollis was incoherent when he spoke and did not make sense. Mehrer testified Hollis acted "peculiar" and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance.
[¶3] Other officers arrived on the scene, and Hollis was detained while the officers investigated the reported disturbance. Hollis was handcuffed and Mehrer performed a pat search. Mehrer testified he felt a hard object, approximately 3 inches by 3 inches during the search; the object was not a wallet; and he was concerned the object was a weapon or could be used as a weapon. Mehrer removed the object from Hollis' pocket, and found it was a small scale. Mehrer testified he concluded it was probably drug paraphernalia, but he planned to have the scale sent to the state laboratory for testing and he did not intend to immediately arrest Hollis for possession of drug paraphernalia.
[¶4] Hollis was placed in the back of the squad car while officers continued to talk to him, and he asked the officers to kill him. Mehrer testified, based on his observations and Hollis' statement, he believed Hollis should be detoxed to prevent danger to himself and the public. Hollis was eventually taken to the Burleigh Morton County Detention Center for detoxification. At the detention center, Hollis was searched and officers located a substance alleged to be heroin on his person. Hollis was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and preventing arrest.
[¶5] Hollis moved to suppress evidence, arguing he was illegally seized and subject to an illegal pat-down search. He claimed he should have been released at the scene after the domestic disturbance investigation was complete, and the detention and transport to the detention center constituted an illegal seizure. He also claimed the pat-down search was illegal because the item in his pocket was not of a size and density that would reasonably suggest it might be a weapon.
[¶6] After a hearing, the district court denied Hollis' motion. The court found it was reasonable for officers to detain Hollis while they investigated the reported disturbance because Hollis was the only person at the scene of an event in which officers could reasonably assume presented danger to a potential victim and to officers, Hollis put his hands in his pockets even after being told to remove them, his behavior was "peculiar," he did not respond to inquiries, and his speech was incoherent. The court found a pat-down search was reasonable because the officers could reasonably believe that Hollis posed a danger and that he was armed. The court concluded the pat-down search and removal of the object from Hollis' pocket were permissible. The court found it was reasonable to take Hollis to the county detention center for detoxification based on the officer’s observations and Hollis' request that officers kill him. The court also found the booking search at the detention center was reasonable.
[¶7] Hollis conditionally pled guilty to all three charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. A criminal judgment was subsequently entered.
[¶8] Hollis argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. He contends he was illegally seized and subject to an illegal pat-down search.
[¶9] The standard for reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress is well-established:
[W]e give deference to the district court’s findings of fact and we resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. We will not reverse a district court decision on a motion to suppress ... if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the court’s findings, and if the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.
State v. Broom , 2018 ND 135, ¶ 6, 911 N.W.2d 895 (quoting State v. Kaul , 2017 ND 56, ¶ 5, 891 N.W.2d 352 ).
[¶10] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Broom , 2018 ND 135, ¶ 7, 911 N.W.2d 895. Whether officers violated constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures is a question of law. Id.
[¶11] Hollis argues his seizure for detoxification at the county detention center was unlawful because he did not constitute a danger to himself or others. He contends he should have been released at the scene of the reported disturbance after the officers were finished investigating because he was not a danger to himself or others, and the forceful detention and transportation to the county detention center constituted an illegal seizure. Hollis does not challenge his initial seizure when officers first arrived at the scene.
[¶12] Section 5-01-05.1, N.D.C.C., states, "A peace officer may take any apparently intoxicated individual to the individual’s home, to a local hospital, to a detoxification center, or, whenever that individual constitutes a danger to that individual or others, to a jail." To jail an "apparently intoxicated individual" the statute directs there are several mandatory and discretionary procedures. City of Jamestown v. Erdelt , 513 N.W.2d 82, 84 (N.D. 1994). The officer is required to make observations necessary to determine whether the person is apparently intoxicated, and the determination is discretionary as long as it is based on the officer’s observations. Id. This Court has held jail detention is permitted only if the person constitutes a danger to himself or others, and that determination is also left to the officer’s discretion so long as it is reasonably based on the officer’s actual observations. Id.
[¶13] The district court found Hollis had his hands in his pockets when Mehrer approached, Mehrer asked Hollis to take his hands out of his pockets, and Hollis initially complied. The court found Hollis put his hands into his pockets again and Mehrer asked him to remove them a second time. The court found Hollis did not respond to Mehrer’s questions, and Mehrer testified Hollis' speech was incoherent, Hollis did not make sense, and he acted peculiar. The court also found Hollis asked the officers at the scene to kill him. The court found, based on Hollis' statements and Mehrer’s observations, Mehrer determined Hollis should be detoxed to prevent danger to Hollis and the public and the decision to take him to detox was reasonable.
[¶14] The evidence supports the court’s findings. Mehrer testified Hollis did not answer his questions, Hollis made incoherent sentences when he spoke and they were unrelated to the investigation, he acted peculiar in the way he was talking, and he did not make sense. Mehrer testified Hollis' mannerisms and actions mirrored those of someone who is under the influence of narcotics....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lelm
..."where it is shown that the evidence would have been gained even without the unlawful action." State v. Hollis , 2019 ND 163, ¶ 19, 930 N.W.2d 171 (quoting State v. Friesz , 2017 ND 177, ¶ 26, 898 N.W.2d 688 ). Under the North Dakota Constitution, this Court has adopted a two-part test to d......
-
State v. Lelm
..."where it is shown that the evidence would have been gained even without the unlawful action." State v. Hollis, 2019 ND 163, ¶ 19, 930 N.W.2d 171 (quoting State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, ¶ 26, 898 N.W.2d 688). Under the North Dakota Constitution, this Court has adopted a two-part test to dete......
-
In re Interest of T.A.G.
...this causes the [c]ourt to find him to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior if he were released from the State Hospital."[930 N.W.2d 171 [¶10] The original and additional findings provide insufficient evidence to support a finding T.A.G. has serious difficulty controlling his be......
-
State v. Bee
...constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures is a question of law." State v. Hollis , 2019 ND 163, ¶ 10, 930 N.W.2d 171. [¶5] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals "in their .......