State v. Canfield, 2013 ND 236

Police responded to reports of a marijuana smell in Room 3A at Williston State College; the college housing director (Heather Fink) knocked and obtained entry from a female occupant.
Officer Dickerson remained in the entryway, observed two glass pipes in plain view, then entered the room, questioned occupants, and later had Andrew Canfield (who was in class) escorted back, handcuffed, Mirandized, questioned, and arrested on drug charges.
Canfield moved to suppress evidence seized and statements, attaching only the housing contract and student code; he waived an evidentiary hearing and submitted the motion without oral argument.
The district court denied suppression, relying on plain view and exigent-circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement; a jury convicted Canfield on multiple drug counts.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the record lacked evidentiary support for the district court’s factual findings; the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing so the factual basis for the warrantless entry and seizure could be developed.
A dissent argued the defendant waived his burden to make a prima facie showing and that the majority improperly remanded instead of affirming dismissal of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless entry/search of the dorm room and seizure were reasonable	Entry/search justified by plain view observation of drug paraphernalia and exigent circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence	No valid consent or exigency; plain view and exigent circumstances did not justify entry or seizure; suppression required	Court did not resolve merits — reversed convictions and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the record lacked facts to permit meaningful review; cautioned that mere speculation of destruction is insufficient for exigency
Whether defendant had to make a prima facie showing to trigger State’s burden at a suppression hearing	State argued the court could decide on existing record; plain view/exigency supported denial	Canfield argued suppression warranted; he submitted limited materials and expected a hearing	Court held defendant’s motion required an evidentiary hearing because no factual record or stipulation existed; dissent would have held defendant failed to meet prima facie burden and affirmed denial

State v. Graf, 721 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 2006) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Fitterer, 652 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2002) (motion to suppress and requirement to give adequate notice; prima facie showing at hearing)
Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1967) (supporting affidavits for suppression motions are permissive)
City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 639 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 2002) (defendant’s burden to establish prima facie case at suppression hearing)
State v. Glaesman, 545 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 1996) (defendant’s initial burden in suppression proceedings)
State v. Avila, 566 N.W.2d 410 (N.D. 1997) (caution about dispensing with evidentiary hearings absent clear stipulation of facts)
State v. Ackerman, 499 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 1993) (mere officer speculation about destruction of evidence insufficient for exigent-circumstances exception)
State v. Gagnon, 821 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 2012) (definition of exigent circumstances)
State v. DeCoteau, 592 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1999) (exigent-circumstances standard)