State v. Cook, 940 N.W.2d 605

In April 2019 Berthold officers stopped Richard Cook for an unilluminated license plate; Reserve Officer Greg Pinske (not a licensed peace officer) initially contacted Cook and ran a records check.
The records check revealed a 2016 drug conviction; Chief Allen Schmidt then took over and announced a drug interdiction investigation.
Schmidt asked to search the car; Cook refused. Schmidt ordered Cook out, performed a pat-down and found a concealed switchblade, then deployed a drug dog which alerted; a subsequent search yielded drugs and paraphernalia.
At a preliminary hearing Chief Schmidt testified; the district court later relied on that testimony when assessing whether Cook had made a prima facie showing of an illegal seizure.
The district court concluded Schmidt prolonged the traffic stop to pursue a drug investigation without reasonable suspicion and suppressed the evidence; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in shifting the burden to the State without requiring Cook to first establish a prima facie illegal seizure at the suppression hearing	State: Cook did not establish a prima facie case at the suppression hearing, so burden should not have shifted	Cook: Preliminary hearing testimony already in the record established a prima facie illegal seizure	Court: Preliminary hearing testimony in the record sufficed; burden properly shifted to the State
Whether the continued detention to conduct a drug investigation was supported by reasonable suspicion	State: Observed constricted pupils and knowledge of Cook’s 2016 drug conviction supplied reasonable suspicion	Cook: No contemporaneous suspicious conduct; Pinske reported nothing suspicious on first approach; criminal history alone is insufficient	Court: No reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop; suppression affirmed
Whether the State’s appeal statement satisfied statutory requirements to appeal suppression	State: Recited statutory language and filed appeal	Cook: (implicit) challenged sufficiency of boilerplate	Court: Although boilerplate was used, suppression would eliminate all State’s case elements, so appeal is proper

State v. Beane, 770 N.W.2d 283 (N.D. 2009) (State should do more than merely repeat statutory language when appealing suppression)
State v. Vetter, 927 N.W.2d 435 (N.D. 2019) (traffic-stop mission and limits on prolonging a stop; unrelated inquiries require reasonable suspicion to detain further)
City of Fargo v. Sivertson, 571 N.W.2d 137 (N.D. 1997) (initial burden to make prima facie showing of Fourth Amendment violation)
City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 639 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 2002) (describing burden shift after prima facie showing)
State v. Canfield, 840 N.W.2d 620 (N.D. 2013) (defendant must establish prima facie illegal seizure before State must introduce evidence)
State v. Fitterer, 652 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2002) (procedural discussion of suppression burden of proof)
State v. Hall, 894 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 2017) (objective totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Fields, 662 N.W.2d 242 (N.D. 2003) (knowledge of a person’s criminal history alone does not establish reasonable suspicion)