City of Bismarck v. Schaffner, 914 N.W.2d 500

In May 2017 Bismarck Police ran a sting using sexually suggestive backpage.com ads in the "women seeking men" category.
Officers posing as sex workers received calls/texts from Paul Schaffner; conversations included requests about "hang out," rates ($120/half hour; $200/hour), and sexual "menu" items.
Schaffner arrived at hotel room 225, was arrested, had $276 in cash, and after Miranda admonition said, "I knew it."
He was charged under City of Bismarck Ord. § 6-05-08(1)(b) (solicitation of prostitution).
District court found him guilty; Schaffner appealed arguing insufficient evidence and a conflict between the city ordinance and state law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of solicitation/prostitution	Evidence (ads, texts, rates, arrival, cash, admission) supports conviction	Evidence insufficient to prove intent to solicit/pay for sexual activity	Evidence was sufficient; conviction affirmed
Whether city ordinance conflicts with state law (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-29-03)	City argues ordinance is lawful and mirrors state prohibitions	Schaffner argues ordinance conflicts with state statute, precluding city charge	Issue waived for failure to raise in district court; not preserved on appeal

State v. Kinsella, 796 N.W.2d 678 (2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Wanner, 784 N.W.2d 143 (2010) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Truelove, 904 N.W.2d 342 (2017) (same standard; defendant bears burden to show no reasonable inference of guilt)
City of Bismarck v. Nassif, 449 N.W.2d 789 (1989) (failure to raise issue in trial court results in waiver)
State v. Himmerick, 499 N.W.2d 568 (1993) (not guilty plea preserves only sufficiency-of-evidence claims on appeal)