State v. Hedstrom, 2017 ND 156

Late July 2016, three bail bond agents (bounty hunters) went to Hedstrom’s home looking for a fugitive; they knocked, heard a dog, saw movement, and requested police assistance.
Fargo police arrived, reviewed the bounty hunters’ identification/documents, declined to assist in the interior search, and set up a perimeter outside the residence for safety and to prevent escape.
The bounty hunters kicked in the front door, conducted a thorough search, found no one but observed and photographed several large marijuana plants inside the house.
The bounty hunters reported their findings to police; officers used that information to obtain a nighttime search warrant, then detained Hedstrom, executed the warrant, seized the plants, and arrested him.
Hedstrom moved to suppress, arguing (1) police acquiescence converted the bounty hunters’ private search into an unlawful government search and (2) the nighttime warrant lacked probable cause; the district court denied suppression and Hedstrom appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ presence/acquiescence converted the bounty hunters’ private search into a government search under the Fourth Amendment	State: officers did not direct or participate in the search and merely secured perimeter; search remained private	Hedstrom: police acquiescence/coordination made the search government-sanctioned, requiring a warrant	Court: affirmed district court — officers did not direct, encourage, or participate; bounty hunters’ search was private, so no Fourth Amendment violation
Whether the nighttime search warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause under N.D.R.Crim.P. 41(c)(1)	State: photographs and bounty hunters’ report of large marijuana plants justified nighttime search because drugs can be quickly destroyed and no one was in the house	Hedstrom: affidavit didn’t explain how he could destroy plants while detained; nighttime warrant not justified	Court: affirmed — affidavit showed nobody was inside and detainee could have attempted destruction if released; primary rationale for restricting nighttime searches (trauma to occupants) not implicated

State v. Dudley, 779 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 2010) (district court factual findings on suppression are entitled to deference)
State v. Juntunen, 845 N.W.2d 325 (N.D. 2014) (standard for affirming denial of suppression when evidence supports findings)
State v. Williams, 862 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 2015) (warrant required when reasonable expectation of privacy exists)
State v. Nickel, 836 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 2013) (Fourth Amendment limits only governmental action; private searches not covered unless government agent participation exists)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (Fourth Amendment inapplicable to purely private searches absent government involvement)
United States v. Leffall, 82 F.3d 343 (10th Cir. 1996) (private actor is government agent only if government directly participates or encourages the search)
State v. Fields, 691 N.W.2d 233 (N.D. 2005) (nighttime-search rule requires showing that evidence could be quickly disposed of; drugs qualify but allegation alone is insufficient)