City of Grand Forks v. Reilly, 2017 ND 135

Police received a dispatch report of a possible drunk driver with vehicle color, plate, and last-seen area. Officers located the vehicle parked at the registered owner’s apartment with headlights on.
Reilly exited the vehicle, stumbled, regained balance, and walked toward the apartment. Officers parked 20–30 feet away without activating lights.
Corporal Buelow attempted to get Reilly’s attention; Reilly did not verbally respond and continued walking. Buelow ran ahead and intercepted Reilly on the sidewalk.
Buelow smelled alcohol, observed swaying and slurred speech, asked for Reilly’s license, took it, and brought Reilly to the squad car for field sobriety tests. Reilly was charged with actual physical control while under the influence.
Reilly moved to suppress and dismiss as an unlawful seizure; the district court denied the motion, finding no community-caretaker role but that the Fourth Amendment was not violated because reasonable suspicion existed at the time of seizure. Reilly conditionally pled guilty and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ approach and conduct amounted to a Fourth Amendment seizure	City: Approach was lawful; officers later developed reasonable suspicion before requesting ID	Reilly: Officers’ approach (two officers; Buelow running ahead) was a forced encounter/seizure before reasonable suspicion existed	Court: No seizure until officer asked for license; earlier approach was a noncoercive encounter
Whether the community-caretaker doctrine applied	City: Officers were not acting as community caretakers (they responded to a possible crime)	Reilly: (argued seizure, not caretaker)	Court: Community-caretaker doctrine did not apply; investigation was of possible criminal activity
Whether presence of two officers or running ahead constituted a show of authority	City: Presence and running were not coercive here	Reilly: Two officers and running escalated encounter to seizure	Court: Neither running ahead nor mere presence of two officers, without coercive conduct, amounted to a show of authority
Whether reasonable and articulable suspicion existed at the time of seizure	City: Officer observed stumble, odor of alcohol, swaying, slurred speech + dispatch report — reasonable suspicion existed	Reilly: Arrest/seizure occurred before such suspicion arose	Court: By the time Buelow asked for license (the seizure), he had reasonable, articulable suspicion of actual physical control while impaired

State v. Tognotti, 663 N.W.2d 642 (N.D. 2003) (deference to district court findings on suppression)
State v. Gefroh, 801 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 2011) (standard for affirming suppression rulings)
State v. Kaul, 891 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 2017) (review standards for suppression and mixed questions)
Abernathey v. Dep’t of Transp., 768 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2009) (Fourth Amendment seizure and public encounter principles)
City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 639 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 2002) (distinguishing casual encounters, seizures, and community caretaking)
State v. Langseth, 492 N.W.2d 298 (N.D. 1992) (officer approach to parked vehicle not a seizure when conversational)
State v. Steinmetz, 552 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 1996) (walking up and talking in public not a seizure)
Richter v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 786 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 2010) (factors indicating a seizure: multiple officers, weapons, physical touching, tone/language)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (factors for whether a person has been seized)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (Terry stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion)
State v. Franklin, 524 N.W.2d 603 (N.D. 1994) (officer observations during a public encounter can generate suspicion)