State v. Apland, 858 N.W.2d 915

Ward County Narcotics Task Force used a confidential informant who observed a Cadillac and a motorcycle at drug transactions; officers traced the Cadillac to 1437 1st St. SE (Apland's residence) where the motorcycle was also located.
Officers coordinated with Minot City Sanitation to perform a warrantless "trash pull" from Apland’s property; they found methamphetamine, a disguised scale, and mail addressed to occupants at the residence.
Based on the trash evidence and other investigative information, officers obtained a search warrant for Apland’s residence and discovered additional narcotics and paraphernalia; Apland was arrested.
Apland moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit failed to specify where the trash was collected and therefore relied on evidence from an illegal search; the district court denied the motion.
Apland entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of suppression; an evidentiary hearing occurred below but the transcript was not provided on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrant was supported by probable cause derived from a warrantless trash search	Probable cause existed because trash (containing drugs and mail) was lawfully obtained via coordination with city sanitation and provided probable cause for the warrant	Warrant affidavit failed to state where the trash was taken from, so the trash search may have been an unconstitutional search and the affidavit impermissibly relied on its fruits	Affirmed: court found probable cause; without the trial transcript appellant failed to rebut that the trash pull was lawful and the affidavit supported the warrant
Whether a reviewing court may consider evidence outside the affidavit when the affidavit contains facts allegedly obtained unconstitutionally	The State may introduce evidence at an evidentiary hearing to corroborate facts challenged as unlawfully obtained, allowing the court to consider that evidence beyond the affidavit's four corners	The magistrate could not properly determine probable cause because the affidavit omitted the trash location, so the court should exclude the trash-based evidence	The court distinguished general probable-cause review from specific factual challenges and held that specific challenges can be resolved at an evidentiary hearing where testimony can establish the facts supporting the affidavit

State v. Juntunen, 845 N.W.2d 325 (N.D. 2014) (standard for affirming denial of suppression)
State v. Canfield, 840 N.W.2d 620 (N.D. 2013) (questions of law fully reviewable; legal sufficiency of facts)
State v. Damron, 575 N.W.2d 912 (N.D. 1998) (probable cause requires identifiable objects likely at an identifiable place; totality-of-the-circumstances test)
State v. Schmitt, 623 N.W.2d 409 (N.D. 2001) (deference to magistrate if substantial basis for probable cause)
State v. Mittleider, 809 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 2011) (warrant requirement applies unless exception; expectation of privacy analysis)
State v. Carriere, 545 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 1996) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage set out for collection)
State v. Schmalz, 744 N.W.2d 734 (N.D. 2008) (review generally limited to the four corners of the affidavit; sworn testimony may be considered)
State v. Ebel, 723 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 2006) (Franks-type challenges and misleading omissions may be addressed by hearing)
Commonwealth v. James, 69 A.3d 180 (Pa. 2013) (when an affidavit contains facts allegedly obtained unlawfully, the prosecution must introduce evidence at a hearing to support those facts)