959 N.W.2d 568
N.D.2021Background
- On Nov. 21, 2019 officers and paramedics responded to a report of a woman (Bridget Medbery) apparently unconscious/impaired in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle in a residential driveway.
- Paramedics had the driver-side door open; Medbery was conscious but unresponsive or minimally responsive, and at one point started the car before a paramedic shut it off.
- Officer Hanson arrived (his emergency lights were on); an ambulance was parked in front of the driveway and Hanson’s patrol car behind it. Hanson asked Medbery to step out of the vehicle for safety and to assess her condition.
- After Medbery exited, officers smelled a strong odor of alcohol and observed poor balance; Hanson then began a DUI investigation and turned it over to Officer Rogstad.
- Medbery moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure; the district court denied the motion, finding Hanson acted in a community-caretaking role and that reasonable suspicion arose after Medbery exited the vehicle.
- Medbery entered a conditional guilty plea to actual physical control and appealed the denial of the suppression motion; the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City/Appellee) | Defendant's Argument (Medbery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial officer contact with Medbery was a Fourth Amendment seizure | Officer acted in community-caretaking role when approaching a potentially incapacitated occupant; approach of a parked vehicle for aid is not a seizure if conversational and not coercive | Medbery contends she was effectively seized by show of authority (lights, vehicles) despite being parked | Not a seizure: officer’s approach was caretaking and the lights/vehicles did not convert a parked-vehicle inquiry into a seizure under these facts |
| Whether asking Medbery to exit the vehicle was an unlawful seizure (request vs. order) | Hanson requested she step out for safety and assessment (permissible caretaking conduct); no evidence he ordered or commanded her | Medbery argues she was ordered out and thus seized without constitutional basis | Not a seizure: court credited Hanson’s testimony that he asked (not ordered) and, given her apparent incapacity and safety concerns, the request was reasonable |
| Whether officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain and investigate for DUI after she exited | Smell of strong alcohol + poor balance + she had started the car gave objective grounds for reasonable suspicion of actual physical control while intoxicated | Medbery argued she was conscious/alert and merely refused to answer; thus no articulable suspicion at seizure | Held: After exit, officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion based on odor of alcohol and poor balance; seizure and investigation were justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgeford v. Sorel, 930 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 2019) (articulates community-caretaking exception to warrant requirement and when officers may aid potentially incapacitated persons)
- City of Bismarck v. Vagts, 932 N.W.2d 523 (N.D. 2019) (standard of review for suppression rulings; deference to district court fact findings)
- Abernathey v. Dep’t of Transp., 768 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2009) (distinguishes approach to parked vehicle from stop of moving vehicle; conversational inquiry is not a seizure)
- State v. Foote, 952 N.W.2d 37 (N.D. 2020) (distinguishes permissible requests from commands when exiting a vehicle)
- State v. Schneider, 855 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 2014) (use of emergency lights in pursuit can effectuate a seizure; context matters)
- State v. Keilen, 649 N.W.2d 224 (N.D. 2002) (caretaking encounters do not preclude officers from making observations that generate reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Thompson, 793 N.W.2d 185 (N.D. 2011) (blocking a vehicle can constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Tuley, 161 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 1998) (blocking an occupied vehicle may convert an encounter into a seizure)