State v. Wilkie, 20160401
Decision Date | 07 June 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 20160401,20160401 |
Citation | 895 N.W.2d 742 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Todd Albert WILKIE, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Ashley Hinds (argued), third-year law student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Carmell F. Mattison (appeared), Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
David N. Ogren, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1] Todd Wilkie appeals a criminal judgment after conditionally pleading guilty to reckless endangerment, fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and driving under suspension, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the case. Wilkie argues the district court erred in determining the University of North Dakota police officer had jurisdiction to initiate a traffic stop. We affirm.
[¶ 2] In August 2016 UND police officer Anthony Thiry was traveling east on Gateway Drive when he saw a vehicle traveling east on the 3000 block of Gateway Drive at a fast rate of speed and exhibiting erratic driving behavior. Officer Thiry checked the vehicle's license plate and discovered the owner, Wilkie, had a suspended drivers license. The vehicle driver matched Wilkie's description. According to Officer Thiry, he activated his overhead lights attempting to stop Wilkie before he entered the intersection of Gateway Drive and North Columbia Road.
[¶ 3] According to Officer Thiry the vehicle continued traveling eastbound through the intersection, turned sharply into the parking lot of a business, ran a stop sign and accelerated to about 76 miles per hour. The vehicle eventually was disabled after hitting a median on Washington Street. Wilkie fled by foot and was apprehended by law enforcement. Wilkie was charged with reckless endangerment, fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, leaving the scene of an accident and driving under suspension.
[¶ 4] Wilkie filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, arguing Officer Thiry lacked jurisdiction to stop him. After a hearing the district court entered an order finding Officer Thiry was within the UND police department's jurisdiction and had official capacity and power to arrest Wilkie because UND owns the property encompassing the eastbound lane of Gateway Drive. The district court further determined Officer Thiry was in hot pursuit of Wilkie when Wilkie did not stop his vehicle within UND police department's jurisdiction. Wilkie conditionally pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the case. Wilkie appeals.
[¶ 5] Wilkie argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss his case. Wilkie contends Officer Thiry was outside of UND police department's jurisdiction when attempting to initiate a traffic stop. This Court's review of a district court's decision denying a motion to suppress is well established:
State v. Knox , 2016 ND 15, ¶ 6, 873 N.W.2d 664 (quoting State v. Bauer , 2015 ND 132, ¶ 4, 863 N.W.2d 534 ).
[¶ 6] As a general rule a police officer acting outside his jurisdiction "is without official capacity and without official power to arrest." Kroschel v. Levi , 2015 ND 185, ¶ 7, 866 N.W.2d 109 (quoting Johnson v. Dep't of Transp. , 2004 ND 148, ¶ 10, 683 N.W.2d 886 ). Section 15–10–17(2), N.D.C.C., permits the state board of higher education to "[a]uthorize the employment of law enforcement officers having concurrent jurisdiction with other law enforcement officers to enforce laws and regulations at its institutions ." (Emphasis added). In Kroschel v. Levi , 2015 ND 185, ¶ 12, 866 N.W.2d 109, we explained:
(Emphasis in original).
[¶ 7] The dispositive issue in this case is whether sufficient competent evidence established Officer Thiry attempted to initiate a traffic stop of Wilkie on property under the definition of "at its institutions."
[¶ 8] The district court found Officer Thiry had authority to arrest Wilkie because UND owns the real property where Officer Thiry attempted to stop Wilkie:
[¶ 9] Wilkie does not dispute UND at one time owned the property under the eastbound lane of Gateway Drive, subject to a public easement. Wilkie argues, by virtue of the easement, Gateway Drive does not fit the definition of "at its institutions" under N.D.C.C. § 15–10–17(2). "In interpreting a statute, we give words their plain, ordinary and commonly understood meaning." Kroschel v. Levi , 2015 ND 185, ¶ 9, 866 N.W.2d 109 (quoting State v. Beilke , 489 N.W.2d 589, 592 (N.D. 1992) ); see also N.D.C.C. § 1–02–02. Under N.D.C.C. § 15–10–17(2), the plain meaning of "at its institutions" includes property owned by the university.
[¶ 10] We conclude sufficient competent evidence supports the district court's finding that UND owns property encompassing the eastbound lane of Gateway Drive. The record shows UND obtained ownership of property encompassing the eastbound lane of Gateway Drive to the intersection of Gateway Drive and Columbia Road through a final distribution of the estate of H.A. Bronson. The Final Decree of Distribution Nunc Pro Tunc provides the property encompassing Gateway Drive is assigned and vested in UND:
[¶ 11] In 2000 this property was surveyed and platted as the "University Village Addition." The plat of University Village Addition dedicated the streets and alleys as an easement for public use:
"We, the undersigned, being all the Owners and lien holders of the lands platted herein, do hereby voluntarily consent to the execution of the Plat of University Village Addition to the City of Grand Forks, Grand Forks County, North Dakota and do dedicate the streets, alleys, parks and public grounds as shown thereon ... to the public use."
[¶ 12] An easement for public use does not relinquish the owner's property rights subject to the easement. See Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc. , 2011 ND 95, ¶ 8, 797 N.W.2d 770 () (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Bismarck v. Brekhus, s. 20170165–20170167
...to avoid arrest" for purposes of extending a police officer’s authority to arrest beyond specified geographical limits. See State v. Wilkie , 2017 ND 142, ¶ 16, 895 N.W.2d 742 ; State v. Demars , 2007 ND 145, ¶ 11, 738 N.W.2d 486.B[¶15] The City argues that the police officer’s entry into B......
-
Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transp.
...ND 185, ¶ 36, 866 N.W.2d 109. [¶ 11] When state officers have criminal jurisdiction, they also have the authority to arrest. See State v. Wilkie , 2017 ND 142, ¶¶ 8–10, 895 N.W.2d 742. In this case, the issue is whether the State has criminal jurisdiction over a non-member Indian and the ac......
-
City of Bismarck v. Brekhus
...to avoid arrest" for purposes of extending a police officer's authority to arrest beyond specified geographical limits. See State v. Wilkie, 2017 ND 142, ¶ 16, 895 N.W.2d 742; State v. Demars, 2007 ND 145, ¶ 11, 738 N.W.2d 486.B [¶15] The City argues that the police officer's entry into Bre......
-
Becker v. Burleigh Cnty.
...and extinguished their rights in the property to the middle of the streets in Fox Island. [¶25] The landowners rely on State v. Wilkie , 2017 ND 142, 895 N.W.2d 742, to support their argument. That case involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of a university police officer to make an arres......