State v. Steffes
Decision Date | 02 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 20100148.,20100148. |
Citation | 2010 ND 232,791 N.W.2d 633 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Kelly Michael STEFFES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Frederick Russell Fremgen, State's Attorney, Jamestown, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Jesse Nathan Lange, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1] Kelly Michael Steffes appeals from the district court's judgment entered after his conditional plea of guilty to the charge of giving false information or report to a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
[¶ 2] Around two a.m. on October 4, 2009, Jamestown Police Officer Michael Craig was dispatched to investigate a report of a male who appeared to be intoxicated and who was getting into a vehicle located in the Brass Rail bar parking lot. The caller's identity is not known. Officer Craig located a vehicle matching the caller's description and having the same license plate number. Officer Craig parked his police car far enough from the vehicle that it could exit the parking spot.
[¶ 3] The vehicle's dome light was on, the key was in the ignition turned to theaccessory position and the car was not running. The district court found:
Officer Craig testified it took approximately three seconds after the first knock for Steffes to open the door.
[¶ 4] While Officer Craig was talking to Steffes, Officer Meisch arrived. Officer Craig asked for Steffes' driver's license and was told Steffes did not have his driver's license with him. Steffes told Officer Craig his name was "Michael Shockman" and also gave him a birth date, both of which were false. Steffes exited the vehicle, and Officer Meisch asked Steffes to get back into the vehicle because Steffes was off balance. Steffes did not comply. Officer Craig then directed Steffes to get back in the car for fear that Steffes would hurt himself. Steffes complied.
[¶ 5] On October 14, 2009, the state charged Steffes with providing false information or giving a false report to a law enforcement officer. Steffes pleaded not guilty, and on November 16, 2009, he moved to suppress the evidence arguing he was seized without reasonable and articulable suspicion. The state resisted the motion, and a hearing was held on March 1, 2010. The district court denied Steffes' motion to suppress the evidence. On April 30, 2010, Steffes entered a N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the results of his suppression motion. The criminal judgment was entered on May 14, 2010. Steffes timely filed this appeal.
[¶ 6] Steffes argues his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer's actions amounted to a seizure without reasonable and articulable suspicion.
This Court has stated:
State v. Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 11, 725 N.W.2d 578.
[¶ 7] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also N.D. Const. art. 1, § 8. However, "not all encounters between law enforcement officers and citizens constitute 'seizures' implicatingthe Fourth Amendment." Abernathey v. Dep't of Transp., 2009 ND 122, ¶ 8, 768 N.W.2d 485. We have recognized that "it is not a seizure for an officer to walk up to and talk to a person in a public place." City of Mandan v. Gerhardt, 2010 ND 112, ¶ 8, 783 N.W.2d 818 (quoting City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 2002 ND 34, ¶ 5, 639 N.W.2d 478). This extends to "[a] law enforcement officer's 'approach [of] a parked vehicle ... if the officer inquires of the occupant in a conversational manner, does not order the person to do something, and does not demand a response.' " Abernathey, at ¶ 8 (quoting State v. Langseth, 492 N.W.2d 298, 300 (N.D.1992)).
[¶ 8] When analyzing if a seizure has occurred, the Court looks at whether there was the "threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." Richter v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2010 ND 150, ¶ 15, 786 N.W.2d 716 (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)). In Abernathey, this Court held a driver was not seized by an officer approaching his vehicle, knocking on the window and asking him to roll down the window. 2009 ND 122, ¶ 15, 768 N.W.2d 485.
[¶ 9] Here, Officer Craig approached Steffes' vehicle, knocked on the window, made an oral request for Steffes to roll down the window or open the door and made a hand gesture indicating the same. Steffes looked out the window at Officer Craig and turned back to what he was doing. Officer Craig then repeated the knocking, the oral request and the hand gesture. Steffes asserts he was seized when Officer Craig repeated this conduct. We must determine whether Officer Craig's second knock, oral request and hand gesture elevated the encounter to a seizure.
[¶ 10] The district court found:
[¶ 11] These findings are supported by Officer Craig's testimony:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cnty. of Grant v. Vogt
...that he or she was not at liberty to ignore the officer's presence and go about his or her business.Id. at 738. ¶ 35 In State v. Steffes, 791 N.W.2d 633 (N.D.2010), an officer responded to a tip that a man who appeared intoxicated was entering a vehicle in the parking lot of a bar. Id. at 6......
-
Garcia v. Levi, 20160036.
...a police officer requests, rather than orders or commands, the occupant to open a window or exit the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 12; see State v. Steffes, 2010 ND 232, ¶¶ 9–14, 791 N.W.2d 633 (no seizure when the officer repeated knocking on the window, orally requested the driver to roll down the wi......
-
Curran v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins.
... ... Dr. Solien diagnosed her with "cervical lumbosacral pain/strain." Curran's medical records state she was experiencing pain in her lower back, which was exacerbated by lifting, sitting, and moving from a sitting to a standing position. According ... ...
-
City of Jamestown v. Casarez
...citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's requests might be compelled.’ " State v. Steffes , 2010 ND 232, ¶ 8, 791 N.W.2d 633. No seizure occurs when a defendant fails to show "his cooperation was produced by coercive means, that he felt ......