State v. Lelm, 962 N.W.2d 419

Police stopped a car with two occupants; driver arrested on warrants and for driving while suspended and consented to a vehicle search.
Defendant Lelm was a front-seat passenger with a backpack on his lap; he exited the vehicle and set the backpack on the ground before officers deployed a drug-detection canine.
Canine alerted to the passenger side door; officers searched the vehicle and found drugs, a gun, and glass pipes. The canine did not alert to the backpack, which remained outside the vehicle while Lelm was detained and placed in a patrol car.
After the vehicle search, officers searched the backpack and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Lelm was later taken by ambulance after complaining of chest pains.
At the suppression hearing an officer testified ambulance crews typically request searches of personal items before transport but that officers would seek the detainee’s consent to search property or otherwise retain the item as evidence. The district court suppressed the backpack evidence; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether automobile exception justified the warrantless search of the backpack	Canine alert to vehicle gave probable cause to search vehicle and containers; backpack was effectively part of vehicle search	Backpack was outside the vehicle when canine sniff occurred and therefore not within the scope of the automobile exception	Rejected — backpack was outside vehicle when probable cause arose, so automobile exception did not authorize its search
Whether search-incident-to-arrest exception justified the backpack search	Search incident to arrest permits searching items related to officer safety and evidence preservation	Backpack was not within Lelm’s immediate control after detention and officers did not search it for safety reasons	Rejected — no safety or evidence-preservation justification; backpack not within arrestee’s reach
Whether inevitable discovery doctrine renders backpack evidence admissible	Even if search unlawful, backpack would have been searched or lawfully discovered (ambulance/transport procedures)	State failed to show by preponderance that backpack would have been discovered lawfully or how that would have occurred	Rejected — State did not prove inevitable discovery; record did not show what would have happened to backpack after arrest

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits scope of search incident to arrest to areas within arrestee’s immediate control)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (defines "immediate control" and purposes of search-incident-to-arrest exception)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to lawful custodial arrest doctrine)
State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, 801 N.W.2d 429 (dog alert to vehicle establishes probable cause to search vehicle)
State v. Reis, 2014 ND 30, 842 N.W.2d 845 (automobile-exception searches limited to vehicle and containers within it)
State v. Lark, 2017 ND 251, 902 N.W.2d 739 (probable cause standards for automobile searches)
State v. Holly, 2013 ND 94, 833 N.W.2d 15 (North Dakota two-part inevitable discovery test)
State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, 898 N.W.2d 688 (inevitable discovery burden and standard)
State v. Phelps, 297 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1980) (articulation of inevitable discovery under state law)
State v. Stands, 2021 ND 46, 956 N.W.2d 366 (standard of review for suppression rulings)