State v. Gasal, 2015 ND 43

In Nov. 2012, Game Warden Pollert stopped Gayne Gasal after receiving information a deer was shot outside the area authorized by a gratis tag; Gasal drove the warden to his farmstead and met with his son Jarred and a minor grandson.
The deer carcass bore the grandson’s gratis tag; Gasal family said the grandson used a Ruger rifle; a crime lab report cast doubt on the Ruger as the firearm that fired the recovered bullet.
Based on inconsistent statements and the lab report, the warden sought search warrants for a Ruger and a Browning rifle; warrants were issued but lacked an issuance date.
Jarred voluntarily surrendered the Ruger and Gayne voluntarily surrendered the Browning; subsequent lab analysis excluded the Ruger and could not eliminate the Browning.
Gayne was charged with hunting without a license and moved to suppress: (1) evidence seized under the undated warrant (arguing lack of date violated Rule 41 and rendered the warrant facially invalid); and (2) his statements to the game warden (arguing Miranda violation). The district court denied suppression and a jury convicted Gayne; he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant absent issuance date	Warrant lawful; ministerial omission does not require suppression	Omission of date violates Rule 41 and makes warrant facially invalid/staleness unknown	Omission of date is a ministerial/clerical error that does not require suppression absent prejudice or intentional disregard; denial of suppression affirmed
Application of Rule 41 (ministerial error vs. prejudice)	Rule 41 not meant to mandate suppression for technical errors	Suppression required because defendant could not verify staleness and was prejudiced	Suppression not required; defendant offered no evidence of prejudice or deliberate rule violation
Use of Rule 36 to correct clerical error on warrant	Rule 36 applies to court record errors	Rule 36 is inapplicable to search warrants	Rule 36 does not apply to search warrants; federal authority supports inapplicability
Miranda/custodial-interrogation applicability to statements at farmstead	Statements were made in a custodial setting requiring Miranda warnings	Interrogation was noncustodial; Gasal consented and was free to leave; no coercive tactics	Court found no custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings not required; denial of suppression affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda custodial‑interrogation and warning requirements)
State v. Runck, 534 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1995) (ministerial violations of Rule 41 seldom warrant suppression absent prejudice or deliberate disregard)
State v. Bollingberg, 674 N.W.2d 281 (N.D. 2004) (technical errors do not automatically invalidate a warrant)
State v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 2006) (standard of review and custody inquiry under Miranda)
United States v. Smith, 720 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2013) (incorrect or missing date on warrant is a technicality that may not invalidate the warrant)