969 N.W.2d 450
N.D.2022Background
- In October 2019 Bolinske Sr. was arrested without a warrant on a Friday for voicemails left at his son’s office; he was booked and detained over the weekend.
- He requested counsel and immediate magistrate review but was not taken before a judge until Monday; the complaint was signed that day.
- Bolinske moved to dismiss, arguing unconstitutional delay in a probable-cause determination and outrageous government conduct; the district court denied the motion.
- At trial the court excluded numerous proffered exhibits about his relationship with his son and refused several of his proposed jury instructions; the jury convicted him of harassment (acquitted of terrorizing).
- On appeal the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the evidentiary and jury-instruction rulings but held the 48‑hour probable-cause rule was violated and remanded for the district court to consider an appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of proffered exhibits | Exhibits were irrelevant or more prejudicial/confusing than probative under Rule 403 | Exhibits were necessary to prove longstanding relationship and intent | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in excluding exhibits but allowed testimony about the relationship |
| Jury instructions (defenses: excuse, mistake of law, defense of others, force to protect, coercion) | Proposed instructions were inapplicable to the charged offenses | Proposed instructions were proper defenses the jury should consider | Affirmed — court’s instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury; proposed instructions were inapplicable |
| Timeliness of probable-cause determination (Fourth Amendment) | Routine practice: weekend arrestees seen on Monday; logistical realities justify delay | Arrested without a warrant and detained >48 hours without judicial probable-cause review — constitutional violation under McLaughlin | Reversed on this point — detention >48 hours without a probable-cause determination violated the Fourth Amendment; State failed to show an extraordinary circumstance justifying delay |
| Remedy for delayed probable-cause determination | Dismissal not required; County of Riverside did not set dismissal as mandatory | Dismissal warranted for constitutional violation | Remanded — district court must consider remedy; dismissal limited to cases of egregious misconduct, prejudice, or institutional noncompliance; suppression is usual remedy when applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (Fourth Amendment requires a prompt judicial probable-cause determination after warrantless arrest)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (probable-cause determinations generally must occur within 48 hours; burden shifts to government if delayed beyond 48 hours)
- Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) (noting McLaughlin did not resolve the appropriate remedy for delay)
- State v. Larson, 776 N.W.2d 254 (S.D. 2009) (analyzing remedies for 48-hour violations; dismissal limited to egregious misconduct or prejudice)
- State v. Chisholm, 818 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1993) (unlawful detention typically remedied by suppression; dismissal limited except for institutional noncompliance)