State v. Brickle-Hicks, 916 N.W.2d 781

Early morning April 14, 2016: Brickle-Hicks reported an assault at Sanford Hospital and gave a statement while bloodied; later that day a deceased female with visible injuries was found in south Bismarck.
Police contacted Brickle-Hicks’ girlfriend; she brought him to the police station on April 15 where he was Mirandized, signed a written waiver, and submitted to a recorded ~2.5 hour interview.
During the interview Brickle-Hicks made incriminating statements about the woman’s death and voluntarily provided clothing to officers for testing.
State charged Brickle-Hicks with murder. He moved to suppress his interview statements and the clothing, arguing invalid Miranda waiver, involuntariness, diminished cognitive ability, police coercion/deception, and lack of warrant/consent for the clothing seizure.
District court held the Miranda warnings (verbal and written) substantially complied, the waiver was voluntary/knowing/intelligent, the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, and Brickle-Hicks consented to give clothing.
Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed—finding sufficient competent evidence and that the district court’s rulings were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Miranda waiver	Warnings were given; waiver signed; statements admissible	Waiver invalid due to diminished cognitive ability, coercion/deception, and totality of circumstances	Waiver was voluntary, knowing, intelligent; admissible
Voluntariness of statements (due process)	Interview was investigative and non-coercive; defendant capable of understanding and resisting	Statements involuntary because of coercive tactics, setting, and defendant’s impaired cognition	Statements voluntary under totality of circumstances; admissible
Seizure of clothing (Fourth Amendment)	Clothing was given voluntarily; consent is exception to warrant requirement	Clothing seizure required warrant; should be suppressed as illegally obtained	Court found voluntary consent to turn over clothing; seizure lawful
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine	Not applicable because no constitutional violations in waiver/statements/seizure	Clothing and statements should be suppressed as tainted fruit of violations	Doctrine not applicable because underlying rulings were upheld

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court) (establishes custodial warnings required before interrogation)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
State v. Goebel, 725 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2007) (standard of review and totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness)
State v. Webster, 834 N.W.2d 283 (N.D. 2013) (discusses waiver and voluntariness standards)
State v. Nickel, 836 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 2013) (warrant requirement for seizure of physical evidence)
State v. Morin, 815 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 2012) (consent evaluated under totality of circumstances as exception to warrant)
State v. Wahl, 450 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 1990) (exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree)