Interest of K.B., a child
2011 ND 152
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Informant alleged Sommer transported marijuana (and possibly heroin) from Washington to North Dakota; police identified Sommer via informant and corroborated employment and phone number with his auto repair business website.
- Informant provided details on Sommer’s storage location for drugs and that Sommer used a white Chevy truck for transportation.
- Police obtained search warrants for Sommer’s apartment and his business after informant tips; surveillance linked Sommer to the business and his vehicle.
- Searches at the apartment and the business yielded marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and related items; a trained dog indicated drugs at the locations.
- Police moved Sommer’s vehicle from the apartment to the business site due to winter conditions and conducted a warrantless search; a detective used Sommer’s keys without consent to search the vehicle, costing two to three pounds of marijuana found in a spare tire.
- Sommer was charged with possession with intent to deliver or manufacture, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana; he moved to suppress the vehicle search, which the district court denied; Sommer entered a conditional guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automobile exception applies without exigent circumstances | Sommer: mobility alone is not enough; require heightened mobility or exigency | Sommer: exigent circumstances absent because Sommer in jail and vehicle immobilized | Automobile exception valid; probable cause supported search |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doohen, 2006 ND 239 (ND 2006) (establishes automobile exception with probable cause)
- State v. Zwicke, 2009 ND 129 (ND 2009) (mobility and probable cause support automobile search; no need for exigent circumstances beyond mobility)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1999) (automobile exception does not require exigent circumstances; mobility basis persists in Carney framework)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (reconciles mobility and lesser privacy; ready mobility justifies vehicular searches)
- State v. Garrett, 1998 ND 173 (ND 1998) (vehicles inherently mobile; lesser privacy expectations justify searches)
- Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1999) (cartel in public place; vehicle search in employer lot without warrant permissible)
- State v. Dudley, 2010 ND 39 (ND 2010) (reiterates standard: appellate review of suppression rulings; probable cause suffices)