904 N.W.2d 307
N.D.2017Background
- Officer Ware stopped Thornsavan for allegedly excessive window tint during an I-94 traffic stop; initial stop undisputedly supported by reasonable suspicion.
- During contact Ware saw a visible "bundle of cash" in the center console, a photocopied vehicle title showing a recent purchase, and occupants who appeared nervous and evasive.
- Ware issued a warning citation for tint, then asked Thornsavan to sit in the squad car; Ware told him the car would be detained pending a drug dog sniff; Thornsavan declined consent to search.
- A drug dog alerted to the trunk; officers found vacuum‑sealed bundles of cash totaling $127,930; Thornsavan moved to suppress statements and the money in a forfeiture action.
- The district court denied suppression and ordered forfeiture; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, rejecting Miranda and finding reasonable suspicion supported the extended detention for a dog sniff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable suspicion justified prolonging the stop to detain the vehicle for a drug‑dog sniff | State: totality of circumstances (nervousness, visible cash, inconsistent title/registration, short trip to a known source city, lack of luggage) gave reasonable suspicion to continue detention | Thornsavan: facts were innocent (traffic stop nervousness, lawful temporary registration, carrying cash, minimal backseat items) and insufficient to extend the stop | Held: Affirmed — the combined facts created reasonable suspicion to detain the vehicle for a dog sniff |
| Whether Miranda warnings were required for Ware’s on‑scene questioning in the squad car | State: questioning was noncustodial investigatory questioning during a traffic stop | Thornsavan: being ordered into squad car made him "in custody," so Miranda should have been required | Held: Affirmed — a reasonable person would not feel freedom of movement restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest; Miranda not required |
| Whether statements and seized currency must be suppressed in forfeiture because of Fourth Amendment or Miranda violations | State: suppression not required because detention and questioning were lawful | Thornsavan: evidence is fruit of unlawful detention and custodial interrogation without Miranda | Held: Affirmed — no suppression; forfeiture judgment stands |
| Standard of review for suppression rulings | State: district court factual findings entitled to deference; legal questions reviewed de novo | Thornsavan: N/A (argues facts insufficient under law) | Held: Court applied deferential review to facts and de novo to law; affirmed district court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guscette, 678 N.W.2d 126 (N.D. 2004) (appellate review standards for motions to suppress)
- State v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 2006) (Miranda custody analysis in traffic stops)
- State v. Fields, 662 N.W.2d 242 (N.D. 2003) (traffic citation completes stop purpose; further detention requires reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Adan, 886 N.W.2d 841 (N.D. 2016) (duration of traffic stop and nervousness as factor in reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (requirement of reasonable suspicion to detain luggage for a dog sniff)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1989) (travel patterns can be relevant in reasonable‑suspicion analysis)
- United States v. $67,220.00 in U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1992) (large sums of cash may be indicia of drug trafficking)
- State v. Helmenstein, 620 N.W.2d 581 (N.D. 2000) (objective test for Miranda custody)