State v. Ostby, No. 20130411.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
• Writing for the Court: McEVERS, Justice.
• Citation: 853 N.W.2d 556
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Arthur Bruce Lanakila OSTBY, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. 20130411.

853 N.W.2d 556

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Arthur Bruce Lanakila OSTBY, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20130411.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Sept. 23, 2014.

853 N.W.2d 557

Gary E. Euren, Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.

853 N.W.2d 558

Laura L. Reynolds, Fargo Public Defender Office, Fargo, N.D., for defendant and appellant.

Opinion

McEVERS, Justice.

¶ 1] Arthur Bruce Lanakila Ostby, Jr., appeals from a criminal judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. We conclude the district court did not err in denying Ostby's suppression motion, Ostby's due process rights were not violated by the State's failure to preserve evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm.

I

[¶ 2] On October 13, 2010, Fargo law enforcement officers conducted a controlled drug buy in which they had a confidential informant arrange to buy methamphetamine from M.B., an unwitting go-between. A detective and the informant picked M.B. up and drove to a convenience store where M.B. had arranged to meet a person who would provide her with the methamphetamine. M.B. was given $500 for the purchase and she got out of the vehicle and walked around the building where other officers on the scene saw her enter a black Nissan. M.B. returned to the detective's vehicle with the methamphetamine about seven minutes later. Another officer at the scene radioed his observations to other officers in the surveillance team and described the black Nissan.

[¶ 3] A police sergeant, who was accompanied by another officer, followed the black Nissan. When the sergeant observed the black Nissan veer over a solid white line as it entered onto the eastbound ramp leading to Interstate 94, he initiated a traffic stop. The officers learned that the driver, Ostby, had a suspended license and several outstanding warrants for his arrest. Ostby was handcuffed and placed under arrest, and a search of his person revealed methamphetamine and a glass pipe. Ostby received permission to smoke a cigarette, and he asked one of the officers to retrieve a lighter from the center console between the front seats of the black Nissan. The officer found a baggie of methamphetamine on top of the lighter in the console. Officers then searched the vehicle and found multiple plastic baggies, two digital scales, and three bags of methamphetamine. The officers took into custody the items from the vehicle they believed to be pertinent to the case, photographed other items, and left the remainder of the items in the vehicle. Items not taken into evidence included blankets, jackets, a helmet, fishing poles and letters addressed to Ostby. No cash was found. The vehicle was impounded, but an impound inventory was not performed in violation of police department policy. The vehicle, which was not registered in Ostby's name, was sold at auction along with the items remaining in the vehicle after no one claimed them.

[¶ 4] Ostby was charged with class A felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–23(1) and class C felony possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19–03.4–03. Ostby moved in limine to suppress evidence, claiming the traffic stop was pretextual and there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion to validate the stop. The district court denied the motion. During the trial, Ostby's attorney questioned officers about their failure to preserve evidence and requested an adverse-inference instruction based on NDJI–Civil C–80.30 (2001), which the court gave to the jury.

[853 N.W.2d 559

The jury found Ostby guilty of both charges.

II

[¶ 5] Ostby argues the district court erred in denying his motion in limine to suppress the evidence because it was the fruit of a “pretextual traffic stop” and the officers had no reasonable and articulable suspicion that he had violated the law. The State claims Ostby cannot raise this issue because he appealed only from the criminal judgment and did not appeal from the order denying the suppression motion. However, an order denying a suppression motion under N.D.C.C. § 29–28–06 is not appealable in itself, but is reviewable in an appeal from the subsequently entered criminal judgment. See, e.g., State v. Pederson, 2011 ND 155, ¶ 7, 801 N.W.2d 723, State v. Decoteau, 2004 ND 139, ¶ 7, 681 N.W.2d 803 ; State v. Klodt, 298 N.W.2d 783 n. 1 (N.D.1980).

[¶ 6] Our standard for reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence is well established:

In reviewing a district court decision on a motion to suppress, we give deference to the district court's findings of fact and we resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. State v. Tognotti, 2003 ND 99, ¶ 5, 663 N.W.2d 642. 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.” State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 7, 801 N.W.2d 429. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law. Id.

State v. Reis, 2014 ND 30, ¶ 8, 842 N.W.2d 845. Whether facts support a reasonable and articulable suspicion is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Wolfer, 2010 ND 63, ¶ 5, 780 N.W.2d 650 ; State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶ 20, 615 N.W.2d 515.

[¶ 7] In this case, the district court ruled the traffic stop was legal based on the sergeant's observation of Ostby crossing over the solid white line on the road in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39–10–17(1). The court further ruled the traffic stop was legal because the sergeant “had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity based upon law enforcement's observations at the controlled drug buy.” Ostby argues the stop was illegal because the sergeant “did not describe any safety issues” associated with “going over a solid white line,” and the stop was “pretextual” because the officers suspected the person driving the black Nissan was...