State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95

Two cases were consolidated: Larson and Kuruc challenged suppression motions after a Days Inn Room 104 incident in Casselton.
Hotel staff reported a marijuana odor; deputies encountered 1:00 p.m. checkout, about six people in the room, and smell of marijuana intensified toward the room.
Larson opened the door; without a warrant, deputies entered partially, detaining occupants and seeking consent to search; Larson claimed a Washington medical marijuana prescription.
Kuruc was observed with a large duffle bag; he entered the bathroom, flushed marijuana, and was arrested; occupants were read Miranda rights and room was secured.
A consent-to-search was obtained at 11:49 a.m.; a search revealed marijuana and paraphernalia; a search warrant followed at 12:51 p.m.; contraband was found in Larson’s rental car.
District court denied suppression to extent of independent-source admissibility, and denied Washington prescriptions as a defense; Larson and Kuruc pled guilty conditionally and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hotel-room entry without a warrant was justified by exigent circumstances	State contends exigency existed to prevent destruction of evidence.	Larson and Kuruc contend entry violated Fourth Amendment and ND Const. art. I, § 8.	Exigency did not justify warrantless entry.
Whether the independent-source doctrine validly salvages the warrant obtained after an illegal entry	State argues warrant independent of illegal search based on odor and info from the scene.	Defendants contend tainted information cannot support independent source.	Independent-source doctrine applied; warrant valid as sources independent and decision to seek warrant not tainted.
Whether Washington medical marijuana prescriptions could be used as a defense to possession with intent to deliver or possession	State contends no valid prescription defense exists under ND Uniform Controlled Substances Act for Schedule I.	Larson and Kuruc rely on out-of-state prescriptions as a defense.	Prescriptions not an absolute defense; no valid prescription defense under ND law; consequences upheld.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding prescriptions from being used for other purposes	N/A	Prescriptions could be used for some other purpose to challenge amount or intent.	Court did not abuse discretion; prescriptions not permitted as absolute defense.

State v. Nickel, 2013 ND 155 (ND) (affirms deferential suppression review standard)
State v. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198 (ND) (defines search and privacy expectations in Fourth Amendment context)
State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157 (ND) (home-entry search presumptively unreasonable without exigent circumstances)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (no door-crossing without a warrant absent exigent circumstances)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (any physical invasion of home is a search; warrants required)
Stoner v. State, 376 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1964) (hotel guest protections and searches in lodging contexts)
Gregg v. State, 2000 ND 154 (ND) (independent-source doctrine and tainted vs. independent evidence analysis)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent-source rule; warrant must not be prompted by illegal-search observations)
Winkler, 1997 ND 144 (ND) (two-step independent-source analysis for warrants)
Schmalz, 2008 ND 27 (ND) (odor of marijuana can create probable cause when coupled with training)
Overby, 1999 ND 47 (ND) (probable cause from officer training and odor of marijuana)
State v. Holly, 2013 ND 94 (ND) (prescription defense limits under ND statute for controlled substances)