State v. Hart
2014 ND 4
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Two consolidated ND criminal cases involve Hart and Sitte based on a Meth/drug paraphernalia investigation at 411 N 12th St, Bismarck, initiated by an anonymous Crime Stopper tip.
- Police obtained a bench warrant for Grubb’s DUI/DUS and conducted searches of the duplex; marijuana paraphernalia, methamphetamine, a handgun, and a gun safe were found at the duplex.
- Officers learned Grubb had been at the Sitte residence and may have taken items from the duplex; deputies observed the red pickup and two males carrying items into the Sitte residence.
- Deputies entered the Sitte residence via an open garage and then entered the home without a warrant or valid consent, arresting Grubb and later Hart in a locked basement area.
- Hart and Sitte moved to suppress all evidence from the Sitte residence; the district court denied suppression, but the ND Supreme Court reversed and remanded for withdrawal of guilty pleas and further proceedings.
- The court held the protective sweep of the Sitte residence violated the Fourth Amendment and could not be saved by exigent-circumstance or safety considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry into the Sitte residence/garage was justified. | Hart/Sitte contend no exigent circumstances existed. | Hart/Sitte contend entry was unlawful without a warrant. | Unreasonable; warrantless entry not justified. |
| Whether the protective sweep of the Sitte residence was permissible. | State argues officer safety justified the sweep. | Hart/Sitte argue no articulable facts showing danger. | Unconstitutional protective sweep. |
| Whether evidence obtained from the warrantless searches must be suppressed. | Evidence should be excluded as fruit of unlawful search. | + | Evidence suppressed; judgments reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (prohibits warrantless home entry for routine arrests; exigent circumstances required for suppression to fail)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (protective sweeps limited to spaces where a dangerous individual may be found; requires articulable facts)
- Gagnon, 2012 ND 198, 821 N.W.2d 373 (ND Supreme Court 2012) (exigent circumstances must be proven; de novo review on whether facts show exigency)
- Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, 685 N.W.2d 120 (ND Supreme Court 2004) (no emergency shown; exigent circumstances insufficient to justify warrantless entry)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (reliance on seriousness of underlying offense in exigency analysis)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. Supreme Court 1961) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; exclusionary rule applies to unlawfully obtained evidence)