968 N.W.2d 134
N.D.2021Background
- March 2, 2021 traffic stop: Damian Carrillo was the driver; two passengers were present; Carrillo admitted his license was suspended and dispatch confirmed multiple priors.
- Officer Braaten smelled marijuana, requested a canine; the canine alerted and officers conducted a probable-cause search.
- Search uncovered two syringes: one with blood in a purse claimed (but also disclaimed) by the front-seat passenger who said she used it for meth; the other syringe was within the driver’s left-hand reach and contained a substance the officer suspected was methamphetamine.
- No one claimed the syringe found near the driver; Carrillo reportedly had access to it and had admitted meth use the prior day.
- Officer arrested Carrillo for driving under suspension and the front-seat passenger for paraphernalia; the officer testified he believed probable cause existed to charge Carrillo for possession but exercised discretion not to cite him at the scene.
- The district court dismissed the paraphernalia charge for lack of probable cause, citing absence of field/lab testing confirming the substance and concern other unsupervised passengers could have placed the syringe; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carrillo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause existed to bind over Carrillo for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (constructive possession) | Officer testimony that a syringe with suspected meth was within the driver’s reach, no one else claimed it, plus Carrillo’s admission and priors suffice to show constructive possession | Lack of direct proof tying the syringe to Carrillo; other passengers were unsupervised and could have placed the syringe | Reversed: totality of circumstances (access, no claim of ownership, admissions, prior & officer observations) supplied probable cause for constructive possession |
| Whether the State was required to produce field or lab testing to show the syringe contained a schedule I–III controlled substance at the preliminary hearing | No testing required at preliminary hearing; reasonable grounds to believe the syringe contained methamphetamine based on officer observations and surrounding admissions | Argued testing/lab confirmation was necessary to establish the necessary element that the syringe contained a schedule I–III controlled substance | Rejected: preliminary-hearing probable cause does not demand lab confirmation; reasonable grounds and officer suspicions suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 960 N.W.2d 788 (N.D. 2021) (explaining State’s limited right to appeal and probable-cause standard at preliminary hearing)
- State v. Blunt, 751 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2008) (describing the limited fact-finding role and burden at a preliminary hearing)
- State v. Woinarowicz, 720 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 2006) (constructive possession can be inferred from power to exercise dominion and control under the totality of circumstances)
- State v. Berger, 683 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 2004) (probable cause is assessed by the totality of layers of information known to officers)
- State v. Duchene, 624 N.W.2d 668 (N.D. 2001) (a defendant’s criminal history, when combined with other evidence, can support probable cause)