920 N.W.2d 314
N.D.2018Background
- On Oct. 18, 2017, Nathan Bornsen was stopped, arrested, and charged with driving under the influence—second offense after a traffic stop initiated by a Grand Forks County deputy.
- Deputy observed Bornsen stop at a stop sign for about 15 seconds (deputy’s typical observed stop: 1–3 seconds) and later make a "wide" right turn where the driver-side wheels rode on the centerline for 2–3 seconds.
- Deputy followed Bornsen about half a mile, observed no other violations, then initiated a traffic stop citing "stopping or standing where prohibited" and the wide turn; Bornsen received a written warning under N.D.C.C. § 39-10-49.
- Bornsen moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion; the district court denied the motion after reviewing body-cam footage and testimony.
- Bornsen entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling; the Supreme Court review focused on whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deputy had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Bornsen | The State: extended stop at intersection and the wide turn gave objective reasonable suspicion of a violation | Bornsen: the stop was unlawful because the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion; initial reason (delay at stop sign) was insufficient | Court held the deputy had reasonable suspicion based on the extended stop and the wide turn; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gabel v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 720 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 2006) (reasonable suspicion for investigatory stops judged by totality of circumstances)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (stop constitutionality does not depend on officer's subjective motivation)
- Zimmerman v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 543 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 1996) (even minor traffic violations can justify investigatory stops)
- State v. Ostby, 853 N.W.2d 556 (N.D. 2014) (pretextual stops are permissible; officer motivation irrelevant)
- Pesanti v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 839 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 2013) (severity of violation is not relevant to whether it supplies reasonable suspicion)
- City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 1994) (appellate standard: affirm unless insufficient competent evidence or decision against manifest weight)