18 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Missouri v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2015TV [¶ 9] Morales argues the district court erred in ruling the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permitted the warrantless blood draw. [¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to fore *421 stall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15 , 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 580 ). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citati 2015TV [¶ 9] Morales argues the district court erred in ruling the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permitted the warrantless blood draw. [¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to fore *421 stall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15 , 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 580 ). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citati | 1 | 3 |
State v. Ackermangreen2 sentences2013See State v. Ackerman, 499 N.W.2d 882, 886 (N.D.1993). 2013See State v. Ackerman , 499 N.W.2d 882, 886 (N.D. 1993). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Planzgreen2 sentences1998In other words, an officer with a plain view of contraband which gives rise to probable cause is not immunized from our rule that a “warrantless search and seizure is unreasonable unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the constitutional requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant.” State v. Koskela, 329 N.W.2d 587, 591 (N.D.1983). [¶ 17] Yet, in Planz we found an exception to the exigent circumstances requirement where the evidence to be seized is “displayed in a manner that does not afford it a reasonable expectation of privacy and it is the instrumenta 1984In State v. Planz, supra, at 81-82, we found an exception to the exigent circumstances requirement when the evidence seized is displayed in a manner that does not afford it a reasonable expectation of privacy and it is the instrumentality of the crime for which the defendant is arrested. | 1 | 2 |
Kentucky v. Kinggreen2 sentences2018"Recognized exceptions include: consensual searches, stop and frisk searches, hot pursuit , border searches, and airport and courthouse searches." Seglen , at ¶ 7 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2173, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ("[The exigent circumstances exception] permits, for instance, the warrantless entry of private property when there is a need to provide urgent aid to those inside, when police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, and when police fear the imminent destruction of evidence.") (citing Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 45 2018"Recognized exceptions include: consensual searches, stop and frisk searches, hot pursuit , border searches, and airport and courthouse searches." Seglen , at ¶ 7 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2173, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ("[The exigent circumstances exception] permits, for instance, the warrantless entry of private property when there is a need to provide urgent aid to those inside, when police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, and when police fear the imminent destruction of evidence.") (citing Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 45 | 1 | 1 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen2 sentences2018"Recognized exceptions include: consensual searches, stop and frisk searches, hot pursuit , border searches, and airport and courthouse searches." Seglen , at ¶ 7 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2173, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ("[The exigent circumstances exception] permits, for instance, the warrantless entry of private property when there is a need to provide urgent aid to those inside, when police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, and when police fear the imminent destruction of evidence.") (citing Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 45 2018"Recognized exceptions include: consensual searches, stop and frisk searches, hot pursuit , border searches, and airport and courthouse searches." Seglen , at ¶ 7 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2173, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ("[The exigent circumstances exception] permits, for instance, the warrantless entry of private property when there is a need to provide urgent aid to those inside, when police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, and when police fear the imminent destruction of evidence.") (citing Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 45 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mitchellred2 sentences2017An officer’s belief that an emergency exists “must be grounded in empirical facts rather than subjective feelings.” Matthews , at ¶ 29 (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609-10 (1976)). [¶12] The exigent circumstances exception normally applies when officers have an urgent need to act and there is no time to get a warrant. 2017An officer’s belief that an emergency exists “must be grounded in empirical facts rather than subjective feelings.” Matthews , at ¶ 29 (quoting People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 , 383 N.Y.S.2d 246 , 347 N.E.2d 607, 609-10 (1976)). [¶12] The exigent circumstances exception normally applies when officers have an urgent need to act and there is no time to get a warrant. | 1 | 1 |
City of Fargo v. Stutliengreen1 sentence2015See City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738, 741-42 (N.D.1993) (refraining from deciding constitutional issue if case can be decided on appropriate alternative ground). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jerry Lee Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). 2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Clarence Richardson, Jr.green2 sentences2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). 2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Bunn v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). 2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Liporace v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). 2003See, e.g., United States v. Cunningham, 133 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (8th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 523 U.S. 1131 , 118 S.Ct. 1823 , 140 L.Ed.2d 960 (1998); United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 630 (7th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank of Fargo, N.A.green1 sentence2002While expressing no opinion on whether exigent circumstances existed, “[ijssues not briefed or argued are deemed abandoned.” Olmstead v. First Interstate Bank of Fargo, N.A., 449 N.W.2d 804, 807 (N.D.1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gronlundgreen1 sentence1998In other words, an officer with a plain view of contraband which gives rise to probable cause is not immunized from our rule that a “warrantless search and seizure is unreasonable unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the constitutional requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant.” State v. Koskela, 329 N.W.2d 587, 591 (N.D.1983). [¶ 17] Yet, in Planz we found an exception to the exigent circumstances requirement where the evidence to be seized is “displayed in a manner that does not afford it a reasonable expectation of privacy and it is the instrumenta | 1 | 1 |
State v. Koskelagreen1 sentence1998In other words, an officer with a plain view of contraband which gives rise to probable cause is not immunized from our rule that a “warrantless search and seizure is unreasonable unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the constitutional requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant.” State v. Koskela, 329 N.W.2d 587, 591 (N.D.1983). [¶ 17] Yet, in Planz we found an exception to the exigent circumstances requirement where the evidence to be seized is “displayed in a manner that does not afford it a reasonable expectation of privacy and it is the instrumenta | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Fargo v. Lee
green
2 sentences2015TV [¶ 9] Morales argues the district court erred in ruling the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permitted the warrantless blood draw. [¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to fore *421 stall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15 , 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 580 ). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citati 2015TV [¶ 9] Morales argues the district court erred in ruling the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permitted the warrantless blood draw. [¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to fore *421 stall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15 , 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 580 ). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citati | 3 | 2000–2015 |
Welsh v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2000The trial court rejected this on the basis of Lee in which we held probable cause to believe minors were illegally consuming alcohol was a relatively minor infraction and did not create exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry into a home. 1998 ND 126, ¶ 13 , 580 N.W.2d 580 (relying on Welsh , 466 U.S. at 753 , “application of the exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense . . . has been committed.”). [¶17] However, the trial court did find the exigent circumstances of 2000The trial court rejected this on the basis of Lee in which we held probable cause to believe minors were illegally consuming alcohol was a relatively minor infraction and did not create exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry into a home. 1998 ND 126, ¶ 13 , 580 N.W.2d 580 (relying on Welsh, 466 U.S. at 753 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , “application of the exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense ... has been committed.”). [¶ 17] However, the trial court did find the exigent ci | 3 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Nelson
neutral
2 sentences2011State v. Nelson, 2005 ND 11, ¶ 11 , 691 N.W.2d 218 . 2011State v. Nelson , 2005 ND 11, ¶ 11 , 691 N.W.2d 218 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Kitchen
green
2 sentences2011Id. [¶ 13] An exigent circumstances analysis is analogous to applying the emergency exception. 2011Id. [¶13] An exigent circumstances analysis is analogous to applying the emergency exception. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2011State v. Nelson, 2005 ND 11, ¶ 11 , 691 N.W.2d 218 . 2011State v. Nelson , 2005 ND 11, ¶ 11 , 691 N.W.2d 218 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Mitzel
green
2 sentences2005However, the trial court incorrectly concluded that because the officers were legally inside, the emergency exception could not apply. [¶11] In State v. Mitzel , 2004 ND 157 , 685 N.W.2d 120 , we analyzed whether the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied when a police officer was already inside a residence. 2005However, the trial court incorrectly concluded that because the officers were legally inside, the emergency exception could not apply. [¶11] In State v. Mitzel , 2004 ND 157 , 685 N.W.2d 120 , we analyzed whether the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied when a police officer was already inside a residence. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Arizona v. Hicks
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 323 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2017State v. Morales , 2015 ND 230, ¶ 11 , 869 N.W.2d 417 (citing Missouri v. McNeely , 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1558-59 (2013)). 2017State v. Morales, 2015 ND 230, ¶ 11 , 869 N.W,2d 417 (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. DeCoteau
green
2 sentences2015TV [¶ 9] Morales argues the district court erred in ruling the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permitted the warrantless blood draw. [¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to fore *421 stall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15 , 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 580 ). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citati 2015TV [¶ 9] Morales argues the district court erred in ruling the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement permitted the warrantless blood draw. [¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to fore *421 stall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15 , 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 580 ). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558-59 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citati | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Bondi
green
2 sentences2003Id. [¶ 38] The guidelines in Mitchell , as well as the holdings announced in Chaney, 612 P.2d 269 , Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536 , 85 Ill.Dec. 773 , 474 N.E.2d 733 , and Oliver, 656 A.2d 1159 , fully apply in the instant case, justifying the emergency exception under the exigent circumstances doctrine and allowing the officers to enter the Matthews residence without a warrant. [¶ 39] The investigating officer, Sergeant Pallas, and the other officers had a justifiable reason to believe that an emergency existed. 2003Id. [¶ 38] The guidelines in Mitchell , as well as the holdings announced in Chaney, 612 P.2d 269 , Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536 , 85 Ill.Dec. 773 , 474 N.E.2d 733 , and Oliver, 656 A.2d 1159 , fully apply in the instant case, justifying the emergency exception under the exigent circumstances doctrine and allowing the officers to enter the Matthews residence without a warrant. [¶ 39] The investigating officer, Sergeant Pallas, and the other officers had a justifiable reason to believe that an emergency existed. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chaney v. State
green
2 sentences2003Id. [¶ 38] The guidelines in Mitchell , as well as the holdings announced in Chaney, 612 P.2d 269 , Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536 , 85 Ill.Dec. 773 , 474 N.E.2d 733 , and Oliver, 656 A.2d 1159 , fully apply in the instant case, justifying the emergency exception under the exigent circumstances doctrine and allowing the officers to enter the Matthews residence without a warrant. [¶ 39] The investigating officer, Sergeant Pallas, and the other officers had a justifiable reason to believe that an emergency existed. 2003Id. [¶ 38] The guidelines in Mitchell , as well as the holdings announced in Chaney, 612 P.2d 269 , Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536 , 85 Ill.Dec. 773 , 474 N.E.2d 733 , and Oliver, 656 A.2d 1159 , fully apply in the instant case, justifying the emergency exception under the exigent circumstances doctrine and allowing the officers to enter the Matthews residence without a warrant. [¶ 39] The investigating officer, Sergeant Pallas, and the other officers had a justifiable reason to believe that an emergency existed. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Oliver v. United States
green
2 sentences2003Id. [¶ 38] The guidelines in Mitchell , as well as the holdings announced in Chaney, 612 P.2d 269 , Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536 , 85 Ill.Dec. 773 , 474 N.E.2d 733 , and Oliver, 656 A.2d 1159 , fully apply in the instant case, justifying the emergency exception under the exigent circumstances doctrine and allowing the officers to enter the Matthews residence without a warrant. [¶ 39] The investigating officer, Sergeant Pallas, and the other officers had a justifiable reason to believe that an emergency existed. 2003Id. [¶ 38] The guidelines in Mitchell , as well as the holdings announced in Chaney, 612 P.2d 269 , Bondi, 130 Ill.App.3d 536 , 85 Ill.Dec. 773 , 474 N.E.2d 733 , and Oliver, 656 A.2d 1159 , fully apply in the instant case, justifying the emergency exception under the exigent circumstances doctrine and allowing the officers to enter the Matthews residence without a warrant. [¶ 39] The investigating officer, Sergeant Pallas, and the other officers had a justifiable reason to believe that an emergency existed. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.