State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95

Consolidated appeals arise from two Cass County cases involving Rebecca Larson and Brian Kuruc; hotel room 104 at Days Inn in Casselton was the subject.
January 9, 2013: deputies responded to a complaint of marijuana odor; they detected stronger odor in room 104 and prepared to enter without a warrant.
Larson opened the door; deputies blocked the door, detained occupants, and learned Larson had a Washington medical marijuana prescription; Kuruc attempted to flush marijuana from a duffel bag in the bathroom.
Deputy Grabinger breached the bathroom door; Kuruc was arrested; occupants were read Miranda rights and the room was secured while a warrant was sought.
A consent-to-search was obtained at 11:49 a.m.; a search uncovered marijuana and paraphernalia; a search warrant followed at 12:51 p.m.; contraband was found in Larson’s car.
The district court suppressed evidence obtained from the warrantless entry but admitted other evidence under the independent-source doctrine; prescriptions from Washington were excluded as a defense.
Larson and Kuruc pled guilty conditionally, reserving rights to challenge suppression ruling and in limine rulings on prescriptions; the district court’s rulings were appealed and consolidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the hotel-room entry valid under exigent circumstances?	State: exigency existed to prevent destruction of evidence.	Larson/Kuruc: no exigency; entry violated the Fourth Amendment.	Exigency not established; entry unreasonable
Was the evidence ultimately admissible under the independent-source doctrine?	Warrant was supported by independent, untainted facts aside from the illegal entry.	Tainted information tainted the warrant; independent source failed.	Yes; independent-source doctrine applied; warrant independent of illegal entry
Can Washington medical marijuana prescriptions be used as a defense to possession with intent to deliver or possession, under North Dakota law?	Prescriptions are not a valid defense for Schedule I substances; cannot negate charges.	Prescriptions should be a defense under prescription exception and could affect intent.	Prescriptions not an absolute defense; cannot negate charges but may affect admissibility for other purposes
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying in limine requests to admit Washington prescriptions as proof of defense or other purposes?	Exclusion was correct given statutory interpretation and federal preemption concerns.	Prescriptions should be admissible for defense or other purposes.	No abuse of discretion; prescriptions not an absolute defense, but may be used for other purposes

State v. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198 (ND) (defines search and privacy concepts; supports suppression framework)
State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157 (ND) (general rule on warrantless searches of home and exigency limits)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (threshold case for entering a home without a warrant)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (any physical invasion of the home is subject to privacy protections)
Stoner v. State of Cal., 376 U.S. 483 (1964) (hotel room occupants have constitutional protection against searches)
Gregg v. State, 2000 ND 154 (ND) (independent-source doctrine; probative value of tainted vs. untainted sources)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent-source analysis; prompts to seek warrant must be independent)
Winkler, 1997 ND 144 (ND) (two-step analysis for independent-source doctrine)
Schmalz, 2008 ND 27 (ND) (smell of marijuana and probable cause; taint considerations)
Overby, 1999 ND 47 (ND) (probable cause from officer training and odor of marijuana)
Holly, 2013 ND 94 (ND) (prescription exception in ND Uniform Controlled Substances Act)