876 N.W.2d 720
N.D.2016Background
- At ~2:00 a.m., a semitruck driver reported to Sergeant Ficken that a westbound Dodge pickup pulling a stock trailer cut him off and might be drunk; Ficken relayed a lookout to Deputy Bateman.
- About 10–15 minutes later Bateman located and stopped a Dodge pickup with a stock trailer near Arnegard after observing the trailer drift left and right and strike the center and fog lines of the roadway.
- James was charged with driving under the influence; he moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied the suppression motion, finding the weaving within the lane, striking of center and fog lines, the vehicle description, and the early hour gave officers reason to stop.
- James entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of suppression; the State appealed and the Supreme Court reviewed whether reasonable suspicion supported the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop James's vehicle | Bateman observed objective driving indicia (drifting, striking center/fog lines) plus corroborating tip and early morning hour—justifies stop | Stop lacked sufficient, reliable suspicion; tip was weak and Bateman’s observations alone were insufficient | Court held reasonable suspicion existed based on Bateman’s observations (weaving/striking lines) plus circumstances (time, vehicle description) and affirmed suppression denial |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dickinson v. Hewson, 803 N.W.2d 814 (N.D. 2011) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings; totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (established that brief investigative detentions are permitted on reasonable and articulable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant where objective traffic violation exists)
- State v. Bartelson, 704 N.W.2d 824 (N.D. 2005) (traffic violations, even if pretextual, provide basis for investigatory stops)
- Pesanti v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 839 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 2013) (weaving within a lane, when coupled with other factors, can supply reasonable suspicion)