State v. Kaul
2017 ND 56
N.D.2017Background
- Police executed a probationary search at Keirsten Thomas’s residence; Thomas said some paint belonged to Jeremy Kaul.
- After officers entered and the door was locked for the search, Kaul arrived and stood in the doorway; an officer identified himself and told Kaul he would be detained.
- Kaul consented to searches of his person and vehicle (nothing found) but refused consent to search his backpack.
- Officers summoned a K-9 unit; about 15 minutes later the dog alerted on the backpack. Officers seized the backpack, obtained a search warrant, and found methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
- Kaul moved to suppress; the district court granted the motion. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers could detain Kaul under Summers (detention incident to execution of a search warrant) | Summers and its progeny permit detention of occupants during a search; Summers should extend to detentions during probationary searches of the premises | Summers applies only where a valid search warrant exists and to actual occupants; Kaul was a visitor and no warrant existed | Court held Summers does not apply: detention of a non-occupant during another person’s probationary search is not authorized |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to continue detaining Kaul while awaiting a K-9 | Totality (known drug house, Kaul’s property at residence, prior acquaintance with Kaul, nervousness, consent to other searches) supported detention pending K-9 | Facts amounted to innocent explanations or hunches; no reasonable suspicion justified continued detention | Court held there was no reasonable suspicion to continue detention; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (warrant to search implicitly authorizes limited detention of occupants during search)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (Summers detention is categorical for occupants and justified by preventing flight, officer safety, and orderly completion of the search)
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013) (limits Summers geographically; detention incident to a warrant does not reach occupants who have left the immediate vicinity)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officers need reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify investigative stops)
- State v. Fields, 2003 ND 81 (2003) (ND case addressing reasonable suspicion for detention pending K-9; mere hunch insufficient)