State v. Selzler
| Decision Date | 02 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20190355, No. 20190357,20190355 |
| Citation | 943 N.W.2d 762 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Jordan SELZLER a/k/a Jordan Selzer, Defendant and Appellee State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Kelsey A. Jankowski, Defendant and Appellee |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Ladd R. Erickson, State’s Attorney, Washburn, ND, for plaintiff and appellant; submitted on brief.
William R. Thomason, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee Jordan Selzler a/k/a Jordan Selzer ; submitted on brief.
Robert N. Quick, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee Kelsey A. Jankowski; submitted on brief.
[¶1] The State of North Dakota appeals from the suppression of evidence in criminal proceedings initiated against Jordan Selzler and Kelsey Jankowski. The criminal charges against Selzler and Jankowski arise from evidence gathered during the same traffic stop, the hearing on the motions to suppress evidence was held jointly, and the cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. The State argues the district court incorrectly found the traffic stop was unlawful because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. We affirm the suppression of the evidence gathered after the traffic stop.
[¶2] At approximately 3:00 a.m. on May 1, 2019, a McLean County Deputy Sheriff was completing paperwork while parked in the lot of a gas station and convenience store where the gas pumps were still legally accessible, but the facility itself was closed. Jankowski was the passenger in a vehicle that drove into the lot and pulled up to the pumps. Jankowski exited the vehicle and walked toward the closed convenience store. After watching Jankowski walk toward the building, the deputy resumed working on his report.
[¶3] The deputy decided to inquire if Jankowski was alright after she had remained by the building for about five to ten minutes. The deputy drove his vehicle up to Selzler and Jankowski’s vehicle. Upon reaching Jankowski and Selzler’s vehicle, the deputy observed Selzler sitting in the driver’s seat. At about the same time, Jankowski quickly walked back to Selzler and Jankowski’s vehicle. The deputy believed both Selzler and Jankowski were exhibiting nervous behavior. In response to the deputy’s inquiry if everything was alright, Jankowski replied that she was making a phone call. The deputy considered her answer suspicious because she was not holding a phone. The deputy drove a short distance away, but remained in a location where he could observe Selzler and Jankowski’s vehicle.
[¶4] After what the deputy considered "quite some time," Selzler and Jankowski left the gas station. As they left the gas station their vehicle accelerated quickly, causing the front of the vehicle to visibly rise up. Their vehicle then made what the deputy described as a "hard brake" at a stop sign. After stopping, the vehicle paused briefly, signaled to turn, paused briefly again, and then proceeded onto the adjacent highway. The deputy did not believe the length of pauses were necessary because of the lack of traffic on the highway.
[¶5] The deputy followed Selzler and Jankowski’s vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. The deputy did not observe any traffic violations. During the hearing on the motion to suppress the State argued the deputy had some "indication of some offense potentially happening, we don't know what." The State also argued the deputy had a belief "[t]here’s some violation of law happening." The deputy indicated the traffic stop was initiated after he observed the suspicious reactions of Selzler and Jankowski when he approached their vehicle, their presence at the gas station at 3:00 a.m., Jankowski’s statement she was making a phone call when no phone was visible, the odd (but lawful) driving behavior when the vehicle left the gas station, and the fact the gas cap on the vehicle remained open after they left the gas station.
[¶6] The court granted the motions and suppressed evidence seized subsequent to the traffic stop. The court found the stop to be invalid because the deputy did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion Selzler or Jankowski had violated or were about to violate the law. The State asserts the district court erred in suppressing the evidence seized after the traffic stop.
[¶7] A valid investigatory traffic stop requires the officer conducting the stop to have "a reasonable and articulable suspicion the motorist has violated or is violating the law." State v. Bornsen , 2018 ND 256, ¶ 5, 920 N.W.2d 314 (quoting Gabel v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2006 ND 178, ¶ 9, 720 N.W.2d 433 ). "Whether an officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion is a fact-specific inquiry that ‘is evaluated under an objective standard considering the totality of the circumstances.’ " Id. "The question is whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified by some objective manifestation to suspect the defendant was, or was about to be, engaged in unlawful activity." State v. Asbach , 2015 ND 280, ¶ 12, 871 N.W.2d 820. "The determination of whether the facts in a case support a reasonable suspicion is a question of law which is fully reviewable on appeal." Bornsen, at ¶ 5 (citing City of Dickinson v. Hewson , 2011 ND 187, ¶ 6, 803 N.W.2d 814 ). We affirm the district court’s decision unless we conclude there is insufficient competent evidence to support the decision, or unless the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence. City of Fargo v. Thompson , 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D. 1994).
[¶8] "Although we have recognized that the concept of reasonable suspicion is not readily reduced to a neat set of legal rules, it does require more than a ‘mere hunch.’ " Salter v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 505 N.W.2d 111, 114 (N.D. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). "An investigative stop of a moving vehicle must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity, and mere curiosity, suspicion, vague hunches, or other non-objective facts will not suffice." Id.
[¶9] This Court has recognized traffic violations, regardless of how minor, provide a lawful basis for a traffic stop. Bornsen , 2018 ND 256, ¶ 6, 920 N.W.2d 314 (). We have also recognized the validity of a traffic stop in the absence of a traffic violation and where the law enforcement officer’s observations have been limited to lawful activity, when the officer has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bolme
...to support the decision, or unless the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Selzler , 2020 ND 123, ¶ 7, 943 N.W.2d 762. Whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. State v. White , 2018 ND 266, ¶ ......
-
State v. Boger
...the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion the driver has violated or is violating a law. State v. Selzler , 2020 ND 123, ¶ 7, 943 N.W.2d 762. The reasonable suspicion standard is less stringent than probable cause but requires more than a "mere hunch." State v. Corum , 2003 ND 89......
-
State v. Boger
...the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion the driver has violated or is violating a law. State v. Selzler, 2020 ND 123, ¶ 7, 943 N.W.2d 762. The reasonable suspicion standard is less stringent than probable cause but requires more than a "mere hunch." State v. Corum, 2003 ND 89, ......
- Morales v. State