State v. Boger, 963 N.W.2d 742

On Nov. 24, 2019, a Minot PD officer stopped Michael Boger’s car around 11:30 p.m., alleging the rear registration plate was not illuminated in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-21-04(3).
The officer first observed Boger’s car pass him east/west in his mirror, turned around, followed for ~5–7 seconds, then stopped the vehicle.
Officer testified the plate light was not illuminated at initial pass, while following, or when he approached the vehicle; district court credited the officer and denied Boger’s suppression motion.
Boger introduced the officer’s body‑worn camera video showing a bright white light near the plate while the officer approached and stood behind the car; Boger argued the video disproved the asserted basis for the stop.
The North Dakota Supreme Court majority held the video indisputably contradicted the officer’s critical testimony, concluded there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion (and any officer mistake was objectively unreasonable), reversed the denial of suppression, and remanded to allow Boger to withdraw his conditional guilty plea.
A dissenting justice argued the video was ambiguous, the district court’s credibility finding should be respected, and any officer mistake could have been reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Boger)	Held
Did the officer have reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Boger for an unlit rear license plate under § 39-21-04(3)?	Officer observed plate not illuminated—sufficient suspicion for stop.	Video shows plate light was functioning; no lawful basis for the stop.	Reversed: video contradicts officer; no reasonable suspicion for stop.
Does body-camera video that conflicts with officer testimony remove appellate deference to trial‑court credibility findings?	Trial court credited officer; deference applies.	Video indisputably contradicts officer, so deference is inappropriate.	Video here indisputably contradicts testimony; appellate court may overturn.
If the plate was illuminated, could an officer’s mistake of fact still justify the stop?	Any officer mistake was reasonable given lighting conditions.	Video shows no mistake; if mistake existed it was unreasonable.	Any mistake was objectively unreasonable on this record.

State v. Bolme, 952 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. 2020) (reasonable suspicion for stop; officer mistakes can sometimes supply suspicion)
State v. Selzler, 943 N.W.2d 762 (N.D. 2020) (officer may stop when reasonable suspicion of traffic violation exists)
State v. Corum, 663 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 2003) (reasonable suspicion standard explained)
State v. Morsette, 924 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 2019) (totality of circumstances and objective standard for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Hirschkorn, 881 N.W.2d 244 (N.D. 2016) (officer’s objectively reasonable mistake may justify a stop)
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (Supreme Court: objectively reasonable mistakes of law/fact can support reasonable suspicion)
Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693 (Ind. 2017) (video can rebut trial findings when it indisputably contradicts testimony)
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (video contradicted officer testimony; consent finding overturned)
Crawford v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 893 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 2017) (court noted review of video will not reweigh if it does not contradict testimony)
State v. Cook, 940 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 2020) (deference to district court credibility where evidence not contradicted)