City of Bismarck v. Brekhus, 908 N.W.2d 715

Around 10:10 p.m., a Bismarck officer observed a vehicle slide into a snowbank, then back out and fishtail; he followed and signaled the driver to stop.
The driver (Brekhus) did not stop, evaded the patrol car through several turns, then stopped in front of an unattached, open garage and drove into it; the officer ordered her to remain in the vehicle.
The officer then entered the open, detached garage on foot (limited entry), smelled burnt marijuana and alcohol, observed signs of impairment, conducted field sobriety testing, and arrested Brekhus for DUI/refusal after she twice refused breath tests.
While retrieving registration from Brekhus’s vehicle in the garage, the officer observed in plain view a warm glass smoking device containing an apparent marijuana substance and arrested her on drug and paraphernalia charges.
Brekhus moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the officer entered the garage, arguing the warrantless entry/search violated the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, § 8; the district court granted the motion, finding the officer could not enter the detached garage without a warrant.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed, holding the limited warrantless entry was justified by hot pursuit and that the state constitution did not provide greater protection here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s warrantless entry into an open, detached garage during pursuit violated the Fourth Amendment/N.D. Const. art. I, § 8	Officer was in immediate, continuous hot pursuit after Brekhus willfully failed to stop and there was probable cause to arrest for fleeing/eluding (a jailable offense), so warrantless entry was justified	Entry was an unreasonable warrantless search/seizure; Welsh limits warrantless home entries for minor offenses and here the officer only observed a traffic violation and Brekhus sought a safe place to stop	Reversed suppression: limited warrantless entry into open garage while in hot pursuit was reasonable; state constitution gives no greater protection here than the Fourth Amendment

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless nonconsensual home entries presumptively unreasonable)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment inadmissible)
Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (suspect arrested after retreating from public doorway; hot pursuit can justify entry)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (warrantless home arrest for a minor/nonjailable offense may violate Fourth Amendment)
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (hot pursuit may justify warrantless entry to arrest)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (exigency exception examples including hot pursuit; addressing chemical test issues)
State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 (N.D. 1996) (reasonable expectation of privacy in garage; entry constitutes a search)
State v. Weber, 887 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. 2016) (warrantless garage entry justified by hot pursuit of suspect who committed jailable offenses)