984 N.W.2d 669
N.D.2023Background
- Shawnee Krall was charged with murder and gross sexual imposition after officers searched a Ford 500 and discovered a body in the trunk.
- Officers were searching a vehicle on Zachary Barnett’s property after Barnett reported the vehicle had been left there and he wanted it removed; vehicle registration did not list Krall as owner and the registered owner said it had been sold.
- Police asked Krall’s probation officer to authorize a probationary search and to allow towing/impound; the probation officer refused. The State’s Attorney’s Office also advised there was insufficient evidence to obtain a warrant.
- Officers used a ‘slim jim’ and entered/opened the vehicle, then conducted what they called an inventory search and found Jane Doe’s body in the trunk.
- The district court granted Krall’s motion to suppress all evidence from the vehicle, finding Krall had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the search was warrantless and investigatory (not a good-faith inventory), and none of the State’s exceptions to the warrant requirement (inventory, exigent circumstances, inevitable discovery) applied.
- The State appealed, disputing jurisdictional sufficiency of its notice and the district court’s rulings on inventory search and inevitable-discovery doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of State's appeal under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(5) | Notice recited statutory statement that appeal was not for delay and suppressed evidence was substantial proof of a material fact | State recited statutory language; Krall argued the statement was insufficient because prosecution told the district court it had other evidence | Appeal permitted: although the notice mirrored statutory language, suppressed evidence was substantial to the gross sexual imposition charge, so appeal properly before court |
| Applicability of inventory-search exception | Officers conducted an inventory before towing to protect property and need neither probable cause nor warrant for inventory searches | Search was investigatory; officers opened vehicle before Barnett requested towing; probation officer and state’s attorney had denied consent/warrant—inventory was not a routine caretaking act | District court affirmed: sufficient evidence supports finding officers acted for investigatory purposes and inventory exception does not apply |
| Applicability of inevitable-discovery doctrine | Evidence would inevitably have been found via a lawful probation-authorized search once ownership was confirmed; no bad faith by officers | Probation officer had denied searches and towing and there was no evidence she would have later authorized a search; claiming she would is speculative | District court affirmed: State failed to show the body would ‘definitely’ have been found lawfully (speculation insufficient); inevitable-discovery exception does not apply |
| Expectation of privacy / standing to challenge search | State suggested Krall lacked a protectable privacy interest in the vehicle or lacked standing due to alleged trespass on Barnett’s property | Krall argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and did not consent to the search | District court’s finding that Krall had a reasonable expectation of privacy was supported by competent evidence and was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches justified by administrative/caretaking interests when conducted in good faith)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1983) (police may conduct inventory searches without probable cause or a warrant)
- State v. Ressler, 701 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2005) (ND treatment of inventory-search standard: focus on proper impoundment and adherence to standard procedures)
- State v. Stewart, 851 N.W.2d 153 (N.D. 2014) (two-part inevitable-discovery test: no bad faith and proof evidence would have been discovered lawfully)
- State v. Handtmann, 437 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 1989) (inevitable-discovery doctrine does not apply where lawful discovery is speculative or hypothetical)
- State v. Cook, 940 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 2020) (appellate requirement that prosecuting attorney’s statement accompanying appeal must show suppressed evidence is substantial proof of a material fact)