State v. Wolfer, 20090323.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
• Citation: 780 N.W.2d 650,2010 ND 63
• Docket Number: No. 20090323.,20090323.
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Christian R. WOLFER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Decision Date: 06 April 2010

780 N.W.2d 650
2010 ND 63

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Christian R. WOLFER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20090323.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

April 6, 2010.

Lloyd Clayton Suhr, Assistant State's Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Danny Lee Herbel, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.

780 N.W.2d 651

CROTHERS, Justice.

¶ 1 Christian Wolfer appeals the district court's amended judgment entered upon his conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol. We affirm, concluding evidence supported the district court's denial of Wolfer's motion to suppress evidence obtained from Wolfer's traffic stop.

I

¶ 2 Wolfer was stopped in the early morning hours of April 25, 2009, after the vehicle he was driving left the marked lane of traffic and drove with its right wheels outside the lane's fog line. Following the stop and some field sobriety tests, Wolfer was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Wolfer pled not guilty, and a jury trial was scheduled. Before trial, Wolfer moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the traffic stop, arguing the arresting officer did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion for initiating the stop. A suppression hearing was held, and the only witness was Wolfer's arresting officer. The officer testified he stopped Wolfer's vehicle because he saw it "veer over the right fog line crossing over onto the shoulder of the roadway and back onto the lane of travel." The officer indicated Wolfer's tires crossed over the fog line by one foot and traveled outside the fog line for two seconds and for a distance of ten to twenty feet.

¶ 3 On cross-examination, the officer testified Wolfer's departure from the marked lane of traffic coincided with a curve in the road and with the braking of multiple vehicles in front of Wolfer. The officer indicated the vehicles ahead of Wolfer were braking because they were approaching a police patrol vehicle with its lights flashing parked on the right shoulder of the roadway.

¶ 4 The district court denied Wolfer's motion to suppress after considering the parties' post-trial briefs and after reviewing a video recording of Wolfer's driving and stop. The district court concluded that "the trooper's stop of the Defendant was authorized by the Defendant's crossing of the fog line." Judgment was entered based on Wolfer's conditional plea of guilty, and Wolfer timely filed this appeal.

II

¶ 5 Wolfer argues that the district court's denial of his motion to suppress should be reversed and that this case should be remanded with instructions to suppress all evidence obtained through his traffic stop because the stop was not based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion of an actual or imminent violation of the law. The appropriate standard of review is outlined in State v. Gregg,

"When reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court's findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1996) (citing City of Grand Forks v. Egley, 542 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1996)). 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).

"`Although the underlying factual disputes are findings of fact, whether the findings meet a legal standard, in this instance a reasonable and articulable suspicion, is a question of law.' Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d at 774 (citations omitted).

...