State v. Gefroh
801 N.W.2d 429
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Gefroh’s suppression motion challenged the warrantless search of his person during an investigatory stop.
- Ward County narcotics agents used a drug-dog alert to establish probable cause that Gefroh’s vehicle contained contraband.
- Gefroh was stopped for traffic violations; dog alerted on the passenger side of the vehicle while he remained inside.
- Huber conducted a pat-down of Gefroh, discovering a soft object later found to be cocaine in Gefroh’s jacket pocket.
- District court suppressed the cocaine as inadmissible under the automobile exception’s limits on searching a person.
- The State appealed, arguing the automobile exception justified search of Gefroh’s person; the majority affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the automobile exception justify searching Gefroh’s person? | Gefroh | Gefroh | No; automobile exception did not extend to Gefroh’s person |
| Was the pocket search justified as part of a lawful pat-down for weapons? | State | Gefroh | Not justified; pocket search exceeded the pat-down scope |
| Was the cocaine in Gefroh’s pocket admissible under plain touch/plain view principles? | State | Gefroh | Court did not reach this as separate issue; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beane, 2009 ND 146 (ND) (frisk/pat-down standards for weapons)
- State v. Harlan, 2008 ND 220 (ND) (reasonable suspicion for terry stops)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (frisk allowed for weapons when armed and dangerous)
- United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1948) (limits of automobile exception to person)
- United States v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1999) (vehicle contents and passenger search scope)
- State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31 (ND) (issues abandoned if not briefed)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (plain touch doctrine applied to contraband during pat-down)
- State v. Haibeck, 2004 ND 163 (ND) (bounds of automobile search and weapons concerns)
- United States v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1993) (probable cause from dog alert)
- United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 1997) (plain touch/pat-down capabilities)
- State v. Zwicke, 2009 ND 129 (ND) (automobile exception and vehicle searches)