State v. Kuruc, 2014 ND 95

On Jan. 9, 2013, Days Inn staff complained of marijuana odor from Room 104, rented by Brian Kuruc and Rebecca Larson; deputies smelled marijuana in the lobby and stronger odor at the door.
Deputy Grabinger knocked, Larson opened, denied entry, and tried to close the door; Grabinger propped the door with her foot (crossing the threshold) and refused to allow it closed.
While Grabinger restrained the door, officers detained occupants; Grabinger forced entry into the bathroom and observed Kuruc attempting to flush marijuana; Kuruc was arrested.
A consent-to-search form was later signed and a search conducted; a warrant was obtained thereafter. Evidence of marijuana was found in the room and Larson’s rental car.
District court suppressed Larson’s statements and car evidence as products of the unlawful entry but admitted other hotel evidence under the independent-source doctrine; it also denied admission of Washington medical-marijuana prescriptions as a defense.
Both defendants entered conditional guilty pleas and appealed suppression and exclusion rulings.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
1) Were the warrantless actions and resulting evidence admissible under exigent circumstances or the independent-source doctrine?	Entry to "freeze" the room was reasonable to prevent destruction of evidence; subsequent warrant and search were independent.	The deputy’s insertion of her foot crossed the home threshold without a warrant or exigency; evidence from the illegal entry tainted the warrant.	No exigent circumstances; entry was unlawful. But warrant affidavit (excised of tainted material) contained probable cause (odor complaint + deputies’ smell) and the decision to seek a warrant was not prompted by observations from the illegal entry — independent-source doctrine applies; evidence admissible.
2) May out-of-state medical-marijuana prescriptions be used as a defense to possession or possession-with-intent-to-deliver under N.D. law?	N/A (State opposed).	Defendants argued Washington prescriptions authorized possession and negated intent to deliver.	No. North Dakota’s statute classifies marijuana as Schedule I (no accepted medical use), so a valid-prescription defense does not apply to marijuana; federal law also bars recognizing such prescriptions. The court left open that prescriptions might be admissible for some other limited evidentiary purpose (e.g., showing amount consistent with personal use).

State v. Nickel, 836 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for suppression findings)
State v. Gagnon, 821 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 2012) (definition of search and warrant exceptions)
State v. Mitzel, 685 N.W.2d 120 (N.D. 2004) (warrantless home searches presumptively unreasonable)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (threshold of the home and warrant requirement)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (physical intrusion into home implicates Fourth Amendment)
Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1964) (hotel guests have Fourth Amendment protection)
State v. Gregg, 615 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2000) (independent-source doctrine applied)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent-source doctrine framework)
State v. Schmalz, 744 N.W.2d 734 (N.D. 2008) (smell of marijuana by trained officer can establish probable cause)
State v. Fields, 691 N.W.2d 233 (N.D. 2005) (excising tainted information from warrant affidavit)
State v. Winkler, 567 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1997) (warrant tainted if prompted by illegal entry)
State v. Hart, 841 N.W.2d 735 (N.D. 2014) (exigent-circumstances definition)
State v. Holly, 833 N.W.2d 15 (N.D. 2013) (burden and definition for prescription defense)