exclusionary rule in North Dakota

2020“The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).” Dodson, at ¶ 20.

2020“The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).” Dodson, at ¶ 20.

2023“When an individual reasonably expects privacy in an area, the government, under the Fourth Amendment, must obtain a search warrant unless the intrusion falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶ 23 , 615 N.W.2d 515 . “[E]vidence seized from a warrantless search, when no recognized exception to the warrant requirement exists, must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, ¶ 15 , 898 N.W.2d 688 (quoting State v. Hart, 2014 ND 4, ¶ 13 , 841 N.W.2d 735 ).

2023“When an individual reasonably expects privacy in an area, the government, under the Fourth Amendment, must obtain a search warrant unless the intrusion falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶ 23 , 615 N.W.2d 515 . “[E]vidence seized from a warrantless search, when no recognized exception to the warrant requirement exists, must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, ¶ 15 , 898 N.W.2d 688 (quoting State v. Hart, 2014 ND 4, ¶ 13 , 841 N.W.2d 735 ).

2014“The exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Handtmann, 437 N.W.2d 830, 836-87 (N.D.1989) (citation omitted).

2014“The exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Handtmann , 437 N.W.2d 830, 836-37 (N.D. 1989) (citation omitted).

2013When an unlawful search and seizure occurs, “the exclusionary rule operates as a judicial sanction against law enforcement intrusion into an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy.” Handtmann , at 837. “[T]he exclusionary rule acts to deter police misconduct in making unreasonable searches and seizures, and to bolster judicial integrity by not allowing convictions based on unconstitutionally obtained evidence.” State v. Wahl , 450 N.W.2d 710, 714 (N.D. 1990).

2013When an unlawful search and seizure occurs, “the exclusionary rule operates as a judicial sanction against law enforcement intrusion into an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy.” Handtmann , at 837. “[T]he exclusionary rule acts to deter police misconduct in making unreasonable searches and seizures, and to bolster judicial integrity by not allowing convictions based on unconstitutionally obtained evidence.” State v. Wahl, 450 N.W.2d 710, 714 (N.D.1990).

2011We conclude the officers unlawfully entered the motel room and arrested Pederson. [¶ 14] Pederson argues all evidence obtained after the unlawful entry, including the statements he made to the officers during the interrogation, must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” [¶ 15] When there is an absence of an exception to the warrant requirement “ ‘evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches must be suppressed as inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.’ ” Ellison, 2001 ND 175, ¶ 12 , 635 N.W.2d 151 (quoting State v. Blunder, 458

2011We conclude the officers unlawfully entered the motel room and arrested Pederson. [¶14] Pederson argues all evidence obtained after the unlawful entry, including the statements he made to the officers during the interrogation, must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” [¶15] When there is an absence of an exception to the warrant requirement “‘evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches must be suppressed as inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.’” Ellison , 2001 ND 175, ¶ 12 , 635 N.W.2d 151 (quoting State v. Blumler , 458 N.

2022Muscha argues that because the recording was suppressed in his criminal case, the confession must also be suppressed in this civil proceeding. [¶3] The United States Supreme Court set forth the exclusionary rule in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the unreasonable search or seizure.

2019Although originally applied by the United States Supreme Court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), this Court has also applied the exclusionary rule to violations of Article I, § 8 of the North Dakota Constitution.

2012Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. Lunde, 2008 ND 142, ¶ 15 , 752 N.W.2d 630 . [138] There are, however, a few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.

2012Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); State v. Lunde, 2008 ND 142, ¶ 15 , 752 N.W.2d 630 . [138] There are, however, a few well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.

2008See, e.g., State v. Utvick, 2004 ND 36, ¶28 , 675 N.W.2d 387 (noting the state constitution may provide greater protections than the Fourth Amendment, but holding federal precedent controls because a state constitutional argument was not properly raised and briefed); State v. Dodson, 2003 ND 187, ¶ 21 , 671 N.W.2d 825 (holding defendant had not sufficiently raised an argument the state constitution precludes application of the good faith exception to the state’s exclusionary rule); State v. Van Beek, 1999 ND 53 , ¶ 26 n. 4, 591 N.W.2d 112 (holding defendant insufficiently raised state constitu

2008See, e.g., State v. Utvick, 2004 ND 36, ¶28 , 675 N.W.2d 387 (noting the state constitution may provide greater protections than the Fourth Amendment, but holding federal precedent controls because a state constitutional argument was not properly raised and briefed); State v. Dodson, 2003 ND 187, ¶ 21 , 671 N.W.2d 825 (holding defendant had not sufficiently raised an argument the state constitution precludes application of the good faith exception to the state’s exclusionary rule); State v. Van Beek, 1999 ND 53 , ¶ 26 n. 4, 591 N.W.2d 112 (holding defendant insufficiently raised state constitu

2015“Evidence discovered during a warrantless, search when no exception exists must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” Kuruc , at ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198 , ¶ 8, 821 N.W.2d 373 ). [¶ 14] In Riley v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2493 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held police generally may not conduct a warrantless search of a cell phone, even when the phone is seized incident to arrest, Riley had not been decided when Chatman’s cell phone was searched on May 15, 2014.

2014Stoner v. State of Cal. , 376 U.S. 483, 490 (1964) (stating, “No less than a tenant of a house, or the occupant of a room in a boarding house . . . a guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”); see, e.g. , State v. Gregg , 2000 ND 154, ¶ 24 , 615 N.W.2d 515 . [¶11] “Evidence discovered during a warrantless search when no exception exists must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” Gagnon , 2012 ND 198, ¶ 8 , 821 N.W.2d 373 .

2015“Evidence discovered during a warrantless, search when no exception exists must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” Kuruc , at ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198 , ¶ 8, 821 N.W.2d 373 ). [¶ 14] In Riley v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2493 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held police generally may not conduct a warrantless search of a cell phone, even when the phone is seized incident to arrest, Riley had not been decided when Chatman’s cell phone was searched on May 15, 2014.

2014Stoner v. State of Cal. , 376 U.S. 483, 490 (1964) (stating, “No less than a tenant of a house, or the occupant of a room in a boarding house . . . a guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”); see, e.g. , State v. Gregg , 2000 ND 154, ¶ 24 , 615 N.W.2d 515 . [¶11] “Evidence discovered during a warrantless search when no exception exists must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” Gagnon , 2012 ND 198, ¶ 8 , 821 N.W.2d 373 .

2018"A search occurs when the government intrudes upon an individual's reasonable *719 expectation of privacy." State v. Winkler , 552 N.W.2d 347 , 351 (N.D. 1996). [¶12] This Court has recognized that an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the individual's garage.

2004Absent an exception to the warrant requirement, the exclusionary rule mandates suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the protection against searches conducted without a warrant because they are per se unreasonable.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347, 351-52 (N.D.1996).

2017“The first criteria is necessary because one purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent and deter shortcuts in law enforce-mént.” State v. Johnson, 301 N.W.2d 625, 629 (N.D. 1981).

2014“The first criteria is necessary because one purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent and deter shortcuts in law enforcement.” State v. Johnson, 301 N.W.2d 625, 629 (N.D.1981).

2015B [¶ 15] Asbach argues the district court erred in concluding evidence found when his suitcase was searched beyond the scope of consent was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. [¶ 16] In State v. Phelps, 297 N.W.2d 769, 775 (N.D.1980), this Court adopted a two-part test to determine whether the State may rely on the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule: First, use of the doctrine is permitted only when the police have not acted in bad faith to accelerate the discovery of the evidence in question.

2013However, what I do not join is the majority’s apparent leap from the lack of good faith under the good-faith exception to a determination of bad faith under the inevitable discovery doctrine. [¶ 86] This Court adopted the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule in State v. Phelps, 297 N.W.2d 769, 775 (N.D.1980).

1988State v. Thompson, supra, 369 N.W.2d at 372, fn. 5 . [4] Because of our resolution of this issue we express no opinion on the issue of the "good-faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.

1985When determining whether or not the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply to a particular case, the appropriate test is whether or not the activity of the police officers was “objectively reasonable.” Leon, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 ; Thompson, 369 N.W.2d at 372 .

2020South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 560 (1983). [¶12] In Beylund v. Levi, 2017 ND 30, ¶ 23 , 889 N.W.2d 907 , we concluded the exclusionary rule does not require exclusion of the results of a warrantless blood test, which violated the motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights, in civil administrative license suspension proceedings.

2020South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 560 (1983). [¶12] In Beylund v. Levi, 2017 ND 30, ¶ 23 , 889 N.W.2d 907 , we concluded the exclusionary rule does not require exclusion of the results of a warrantless blood test, which violated the motorist’s Fourth Amendment rights, in civil administrative license suspension proceedings.

2017State Highway Comm’r, 436 N.W.2d 250 (N.D. 1989), and even if the exclusionary rule applies to administrative proceedings, the results are admissible under a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2017Id. [¶ 15] In Holte, 436 N.W.2d at 251-52 , this Court considered the application of the exclusionary rule to an administrative license suspension proceeding.

2015State v. Herrick , 1999 ND 1, ¶ 15 , 588 N.W.2d 847 (citing Leon , 468 U.S. at 923 ). [¶22] The purpose of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was, as noted in United States v. Conner : The rule in Leon is based on the theory that where there was been no police illegality, there is no conduct the courts need to deter and therefore no basis to enforce the exclusionary rule.

2015State v. Herrick, 1999 ND 1, ¶ 15 , 588 N.W.2d 847 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ). [¶ 22] The purpose of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was, as noted in United States v. Conner: The rule in Leon is based on the theory that where there was been no police illegality, there is no conduct the courts need to deter and therefore no basis to enforce the exclusionary rule.

2015State v. Herrick , 1999 ND 1, ¶ 15 , 588 N.W.2d 847 (citing Leon , 468 U.S. at 923 ). [¶22] The purpose of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was, as noted in United States v. Conner : The rule in Leon is based on the theory that where there was been no police illegality, there is no conduct the courts need to deter and therefore no basis to enforce the exclusionary rule.

2015State v. Herrick, 1999 ND 1, ¶ 15 , 588 N.W.2d 847 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ). [¶ 22] The purpose of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was, as noted in United States v. Conner: The rule in Leon is based on the theory that where there was been no police illegality, there is no conduct the courts need to deter and therefore no basis to enforce the exclusionary rule.

2022Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363 (1998) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in parole revocation hearings); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 454 (1976) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil tax proceedings); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050 (1984) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil deportation proceedings); 1 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 , 349–50 (1974) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in grand jury proceedings).

2022Janis, 428 U.S. at 446–47 (stating “the Court never has applied [the exclusionary rule] to exclude evidence from a civil proceeding, federal or state”). [¶4] We have applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in criminal matters since State v. Govan, 123 N.W.2d 110 , 113–14 (N.D. 1963), and State v. Manning, 134 N.W.2d 91, 99 (N.D. 1965).

2024Comm’r, 438 N.W.2d 528, 531-32 (N.D. 1989), we explained Lubenow had no expectation of privacy regarding his activities in an open garage, but Lubenow had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the officer’s intrusion into his garage. [¶10] “Evidence discovered during a warrantless search when no exception exists must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” State v. Williams, 2015 ND 103, ¶ 7 , 862 N.W.2d 831 (quoting State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95, ¶ 12 , 846 N.W.2d 314 ).

2024Comm’r, 438 N.W.2d 528, 531-32 (N.D. 1989), we explained Lubenow had no expectation of privacy regarding his activities in an open garage, but Lubenow had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the officer’s intrusion into his garage. [¶10] “Evidence discovered during a warrantless search when no exception exists must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.” State v. Williams, 2015 ND 103, ¶ 7 , 862 N.W.2d 831 (quoting State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95, ¶ 12 , 846 N.W.2d 314 ).

2021When no exception exists, “any evidence seized is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and must be suppressed.” Graf, 2006 ND 196, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N.W.2d 120 ). [¶7] The State argues, however, that following the exclusionary rule in this case will not deter future Fourth Amendment violations because officers did not enter the residence intending to search.

2016Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N,W.2d 120. [¶23] “‘Consent is one exception to the warrant requirement,’ but the consent must be voluntary and the State has the burden of proof.” Torkelseri, 2008 ND 141, ¶ 21 , 752 N.W.2d 640 ' (quoting Graf, 2006 ND 196, ¶9 , 721 N.W.2d 381 ), “A district court must ‘determine whether the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.’ ” State v. Hayes, 2012 ND 9, ¶ 38 , 809 N.W.2d 309 (quoting State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16 , 566 N.W.2d 410 ).

2015Under the good faith exception, evidence seized pursuant to a warrant, even if obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, “should not be excluded when an officer has acted in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance on the magistrate’s probable cause decision.” State v. Lunde, 2008 ND 142, ¶ 15 , 752 N.W.2d 630 .

2015Under the good faith exception, evidence seized pursuant to a warrant, even if obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, “should not be excluded when an officer has acted in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance on the magistrate’s probable cause decision.” State v. Lunde, 2008 ND 142, ¶ 15 , 752 N.W.2d 630 .

2022Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363 (1998) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in parole revocation hearings); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 454 (1976) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil tax proceedings); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050 (1984) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil deportation proceedings); 1 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 , 349–50 (1974) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply in grand jury proceedings).

2017As such, the rule does not “proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons,” Stone v. Powell, supra, at 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 , but applies only in contexts “where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served,” United States v. Calandra, supra, at 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613 ; see also United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 454 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976) (“If ... the exclusionary rule does not result in appreciable deterrence, then, clearly, its use in the instant situation is unwarranted”).