Brigham Oil v. Lario Oil, 2011 ND 154

Ward County Narcotics Task Force received information Gefroh was involved with controlled substances and sales.
Officer Sandusky observed Gefroh leave a bar with two women and noticed three different registration tabs on Gefroh’s plate, prompting a traffic stop.
A drug-sniffing dog indicated drugs at the passenger-side door during the stop, while Gefroh made furtive movements toward his jacket pockets.
Gefroh exited the vehicle; officers searched the vehicle and found a bag with marijuana residue, and a pat-down revealed four cocaine bundles in Gefroh’s pocket, leading to his arrest.
Gefroh moved to suppress statements and all evidence from the stop, the district court suppressed the pocket cocaine as outside the automobile exception’s scope, and on appeal the State challenged the district court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of the cocaine evidence found on Gefroh’s person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the automobile exception justify searching Gefroh’s person?	Gefroh’s search was justified by probable cause from the dog alert and vehicle context.	The automobile exception does not permit a warrantless search of Gefroh’s person.	No; automobile exception did not justify searching Gefroh’s person.
Did the dog alert create probable cause to search the vehicle?	Dog alert established probable cause that the vehicle contained contraband.	Probable cause did not extend to searching Gefroh’s person, only the vehicle.	Yes; dog alert established probable cause to search the vehicle, but not Gefroh’s person.