State v. A.V. (In re Interest of K.V.)
| Citation | 946 N.W.2d 518 |
| Decision Date | 22 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20190275,20190275 |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF K.V., a Child State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee v. A.V., mother of said child; and E.D., father of said child, Respondents and K.V., said child, Respondent and Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Maren H. Halbach, Assistant State's Attorney, Devils Lake, ND, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.
Ulysses S. Jones, Devils Lake, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.
[¶1] K.V. appeals from a juvenile court order for disposition. K.V. argues the court erred in denying a motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.
[¶2] On January 6, 2019, an off-duty Devils Lake police officer reported a possibly impaired driver in a blue Chevy pickup. Another officer, Officer Gilbertson, was dispatched and noticed the vehicle was unable to maintain its lane of travel and swerved across the fog line and center line. Gilbertson pulled the vehicle over and as he reached the back of the vehicle, the vehicle fled the scene.
[¶3] Gilbertson pursued the vehicle, driving 30 to 45 miles per hour in slippery conditions and another officer attempted to deploy road spikes. The vehicle avoided the spikes and zig-zagged through a field until it became stuck in the snow. Gilbertson yelled commands and remained behind his vehicle. Gilbertson testified this was "probably the scariest moments of [his] entire career" as he was aware an officer had recently been lost in a shooting in a similar manner, and Gilbertson took cover behind his vehicle "in case [the occupants] beg[a]n shooting or something."
[¶4] When the occupants did not leave the vehicle, Gilbertson approached the vehicle, reached in the vehicle, put it in park, and smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Gilbertson testified the driver was out of control and made comments about his shoes melting. After removing and arresting the driver, officers removed the passenger, K.V. Officer Engen testified they did not know if K.V. had weapons on him and there was a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Engen stated in his testimony that in a fleeing situation he was always concerned about safety and that was one of the reasons to search K.V. Engen did a pat down search of K.V. and found drug paraphernalia, a bong, and a bag of meth in K.V.’s jacket. Engen agreed he patted down K.V. to search for weapons as a safety issue and to look for illegal drugs.
[¶5] K.V. was alleged to be a delinquent child, charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. K.V. filed a motion to suppress, contending there was no exception for the warrantless search and the search was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The juvenile court denied the motion to suppress on the record, finding: The court denied K.V.’s renewed motion to suppress at the adjudication hearing. K.V. was adjudicated a delinquent child for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
[¶6] On appeal, K.V. argues the warrantless search was prohibited under the Fourth Amendment because the State failed to show an exception to the warrant requirement, therefore, the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted.
[¶7] Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 14(d), when factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record. The North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure do not address the standard of review for the court's findings, but according to N.D.R.Juv.P. 21(b), which discusses the effective date of the rules, "all statutes and rules, or portions of, in conflict with these rules or any amendment or addition to these rules are superseded." Prior to adoption of the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Court, this Court has applied the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure to factual findings, stating:
Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), this Court reviews a juvenile court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard of review, with due regard given to the opportunity of the juvenile court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if there is no evidence to support it, if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, or if the finding was induced by an erroneous view of the law. This Court reviews questions of law de novo.
Interest of D.O., 2013 ND 247, ¶ 6, 840 N.W.2d 641. As provided in N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6) findings of fact in juvenile matters must not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Because the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure do not address the standard of review for findings of fact, and N.D.R.Civ.P. 52 does not conflict and specifically mentions juvenile matters, we will continue to rely on N.D.R.Civ.P. 52 for the standard of review for the juvenile court's findings of fact. When the juvenile court makes findings, it must do so with sufficient specificity to afford a clear understanding of its decision.
Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., requires a court to find facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately when an action is tried on the facts without a jury. The court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law which provide sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual determinations made by the trial court and the basis for its conclusions of law and decision. The court's findings of fact ... should be stated with sufficient specificity to assist the appellate court's review and to afford a clear understanding of the court's decision. [W]e cannot properly review a decision if the [trial] court does not provide an explanation of the basis for its decision because we would be left to speculate whether the court properly applied the law. Findings that are conclusory and general do not comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
Interest of T.R.C. , 2014 ND 172, ¶ 9, 852 N.W.2d 408 (citations omitted). Questions of law on a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo. State v. Daniels, 2014 ND 124, ¶ 8, 848 N.W.2d 670.
[¶8] "The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Guscette , 2004 ND 71, ¶ 7, 678 N.W.2d 126. A warrant is required for a search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, unless a valid exception applies. Daniels , 2014 ND 124, ¶ 6, 848 N.W.2d 670. The State has the burden to show an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id.
[¶9] Following a traffic stop, an officer may order a driver and any passengers out of a vehicle. Knowles v. Iowa , 525 U.S. 113, 118, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998). There is no automatic search rule for companions of an arrestee. State v. Heitzmann , 2001 ND 136, ¶ 11, 632 N.W.2d 1. "[M]ere association with a known or suspected criminal, or mere presence in that person's automobile, does not create probable cause to arrest." U.S. v. Caves , 890 F.2d 87, 94 (8th Cir. 1989).
[¶10] An exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to arrest. State v. Mercier , 2016 ND 160, ¶ 20, 883 N.W.2d 478. A search incident to arrest based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment. Id. This Court has previously said the smell of marijuana may establish probable cause to arrest. State v. Schmalz , 2008 ND 27, ¶ 20, 744 N.W.2d 734 ; State v. Overby , 1999 ND 47, ¶ 13, 590 N.W.2d 703. The officer who patted down K.V. did not testify that the search was conducted incident to arrest nor did the State argue the search was conducted incident to a valid arrest.
[¶11] Another exception to the warrant requirement is the automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. K.V. (In re Interest of K.V.)
...on the reasonableness of the pat down and did not identify what exception to the warrant requirement justified the search. Interest of K.V. , 2020 ND 169, ¶¶ 13-14, 946 N.W.2d 518.[¶3] The facts of this case were explained in Interest of K.V. , 2020 ND 169, 946 N.W.2d 518, and will only be ......