State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 28 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 20140318.,20140318. |
| Citation | 862 N.W.2d 801 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Evan Joseph TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Carmell F. Mattison, Assistant State's Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.
Tyler J. Morrow, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellee.
[¶ 1] The State appeals from a district court order granting Evan Joseph Taylor's motion to suppress evidence. We reverse the district court's order granting Taylor's motion to suppress evidence found inside his bedroom and remand for further action consistent with this opinion.
[¶ 2] A law enforcement officer with the Grand Forks Narcotics Task Force sought and obtained a search warrant to search a residence. In his affidavit in support of the warrant, the officer stated he received information from a University of North Dakota college student that Nathe and unknown counterparts were part of a drug trafficking organization in the Grand Forks area that distributed marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, ecstacy, MDMA, DMT and other types of research chemicals. The Task Force had previously conducted an investigation and discovered Nathe resided at a single family dwelling, located at 1817 1st Avenue North in Grand Forks. As part of the investigation, the Task Force conducted a garbage pull at the residence. During the garbage pull, the Task Force found a paystub containing identifying information for Nathe and a receipt from Jimmy Johns with the name and phone number of another individual, along with items containing marijuana residue. These items included a small zip lock baggie, two screens, and two large plastic bags. Finding probable cause existed, the magistrate issued a search warrant providing:
You are hereby commanded to conduct this search of the residence of 1817 1st Ave North in Grand Forks, and that such search shall be for the purposes of looking for and seizing all controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and any funds derived from the sale of controlled substances, fruits of the crime and cellphones utilized in the initiation and conduction of illegal activities.
On October 24, 2013, the Task Force executed the search warrant. The Task Force found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in the common areas and in bedrooms, including Taylor's bedroom. Specifically, the Task Force found a handgun and marijuana in Taylor's bedroom. The Task Force also found checks, a passport, and a title to a vehicle all belonging to Taylor in his bedroom. Taylor did not grant the Task Force permission to search his bedroom. Taylor was arrested.
[¶ 3] Taylor was initially charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The information was later amended, to charge Taylor with possession of more than one ounce of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Taylor moved to suppress the evidence found in his bedroom, arguing law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Particularly, he asserted law enforcement violated his reasonable expectation of privacy by searching his private bedroom without a separate warrant. Taylor did not dispute that the search warrant executed was validly obtained; rather, he argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom requiring a separate search warrant.
[¶ 4] The district court held two hearings on the motion to suppress. At the hearings, testimony revealed the residence included common areas, including a kitchen and living room, along with four separate bedrooms. Nathe's bedroom was on the first floor and Taylor's bedroom was in the basement. Nathe did not own the residence. Three out of four of the individuals who resided at the single family dwelling were present during the search, including Taylor. All three individuals were detained in a common living area. Law enforcement did not know four unrelated individuals resided in the home prior to the day the search warrant was executed.
[¶ 5] The district court entered a memorandum decision and order granting Taylor's motion to suppress evidence, concluding the evidence found in Taylor's bedroom was not lawfully seized under the search warrant because Taylor was entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom and no exigent circumstances existed which would have justified entering Taylor's bedroom without a search warrant. The State appealed.
[¶ 6] On appeal, the State argues this Court should reverse the district court's order granting Taylor's motion to suppress evidence because law enforcement did not exceed the scope of the search warrant. The State contends it would be an impossible task for law enforcement to specifically articulate in a search warrant the exact location of drugs within a residence.
[¶ 7] This Court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress as follows:
We affirm the decision of a trial court on a motion to suppress, after resolving conflicting evidence in favor of affirming the decision, unless we conclude there is insufficient evidence to support the decision or the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence. Recognizing the importance of the trial court's opportunity to observe witnesses and assess their credibility, we accord great deference to the trial court's findings of fact in suppression matters.
City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 2002 ND 34, ¶ 6, 639 N.W.2d 478 (citations omitted). Whether law enforcement violated constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure is a question of law. State v. Uran, 2008 ND 223, ¶ 5, 758 N.W.2d 727. “[Q]uestions of law are fully reviewable, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.” State v. Loh, 2010 ND 66, ¶ 7, 780 N.W.2d 719.
[¶ 8] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Holly, 2013 ND 94, ¶ 12, 833 N.W.2d 15. State v. Bollingberg, 2004 ND 30, ¶ 14, 674 N.W.2d 281 (citation omitted). “Probable cause is required for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ...” State v. Rangeloff, 1998 ND 135, ¶ 16, 580 N.W.2d 593.
[¶ 9] “A search warrant must describe with particularity the places to be searched and items to be seized.” State v. Stewart, 2006 ND 39, ¶ 11, 710 N.W.2d 403. “Whether a warrant is sufficiently particular depends upon the surrounding circumstances, including the purpose of the warrant, the crime involved, the place to be searched, and the nature of the items sought.” Id. “The purpose of the particularity requirement is to minimize the chances that the executing officer will exceed the scope of the permissible search because of confusion or uncertainty.” State v. Driscoll, 2005 ND 105, ¶ 14, 697 N.W.2d 351. “Generally, a search authorized by a search warrant is limited to the place described in the warrant and does not include additional or different places.” Bollingberg, 2004 ND 30, ¶ 14, 674 N.W.2d 281. However, “[a] search conducted pursuant to a search warrant may extend to the entire area covered by the warrant's description.” State v. Erickson, 496 N.W.2d 555, 560 (N.D.1993).
[¶ 10] Taylor argues the district court's grant of his motion to suppress should be affirmed because the State failed to meet its burden of proof after Taylor made a prima facie case of a Fourth Amendment violation. Taylor seems to contend that because the State did not convince the district court it had overcome the prima facie showing of an expectation of privacy in his bedroom, it had not properly raised the issue of whether law enforcement exceeded the scope of the warrant on appeal. We disagree.
[¶ 11] City of Fargo v. Sivertson, 1997 ND 204, ¶ 6, 571 N.W.2d 137 (citations omitted). The State's argument was that law enforcement had a validly executed warrant for the entire residence, justifying the search that included Taylor's bedroom. In doing so, the State preserved the issue as to whether the district court's findings meet the legal standard as a matter of law. This Court has not specifically addressed whether a person living communally in a single family dwelling has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bedroom separate from their expectation of privacy in a home generally. We have held “[w]hether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given area must be decided on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Kitchen, 1997 ND 241, ¶ 12, 572 N.W.2d 106; see also State v. Gatlin, 2014 ND 162, ¶ 5, 851 N.W.2d 178 (); State v. Nguyen, 2013 ND 252, ¶ 9, 841 N.W.2d 676 (). Taylor had the burden to show law enforcement should not have relied on the face of the warrant or that the scope of the warrant was exceeded. Taylor concedes the search warrant is not invalid on its face. The search warrant was issued for a specific single family residence that law enforcement had probable cause to search:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foote
...credibility, we accord great deference to the trial court's findings of fact in suppression matters." State v. Taylor , 2015 ND 100, ¶ 7, 862 N.W.2d 801 (quoting Jerome , 2002 ND 34, ¶ 6, 639 N.W.2d 478 ). Whether an officer communicated a request or an order is a question of fact that depe......