State v. Nickel
2013 ND 155
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Big Willies ATP shipped a package via We Ship (UPS outlet) to Intermedia in California; employee Kent Danielson questioned contents and, per store policy, opened the box when he found it suspicious.
- Danielson opened the package in the presence of four Metro Area Narcotics Task Force officers; officers observed numerous labeled tubes containing plant material inside clear Ziploc bags.
- Agent Miller could not visually identify the material as a controlled substance; officers removed and opened bags at We Ship, took one tube to the state crime lab for testing, and transported the remainder to the Bismarck law enforcement center without a warrant.
- Initial lab results were negative, so officers resealed and forwarded the package to California; later lab testing showed the material contained JWH-122, prompting retrieval of the returned package and charging of William Nickel and Ryan Zueger with conspiracy to deliver controlled synthetic cannabinoids.
- Defendants moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless seizure and testing of the package; the district court denied suppression, but the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed, holding the warrantless seizures violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Danielson's opening of the package was governmental action | State argued officers merely observed a private-party opening and relied on what was plainly visible | Nickel/Zueger argued Danielson acted as a government agent, so the opening was a Fourth Amendment search | Court held sufficient evidence supported finding Danielson acted privately; initial opening was a private-party search (no gov't action) |
| Whether officers could seize/search package without a warrant after viewing contents (plain view) | State argued probable cause existed from plain view and justified warrantless seizure/testing | Defendants argued plain view did not permit removing/seizing the package or taking samples without a warrant | Court held plain view did not justify warrantless seizure or removal for lab testing; incriminating character was not immediately apparent |
| Whether exigent circumstances or inventory exception justified seizure/transport | State asserted exigent circumstances (risk of loss/delivery) and inventory procedures justified actions | Defendants contended no exigency existed and inventory exception was pretextual investigative conduct | Court held neither exigent circumstances nor inventory exception applied; officers could have obtained a warrant |
| Remedy for Fourth Amendment violation | State sought to admit lab results and downstream evidence | Defendants sought suppression of evidence as fruit of illegal seizure | Court suppressed evidence derived from the warrantless seizure and reversed convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (private-party searches do not implicate Fourth Amendment unless government acts as agent)
- State v. Ressler, 701 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2005) (movement of an opened package from a shipping outlet to a law enforcement center is a full-fledged seizure requiring probable cause or a warrant; later warrantless inventory/search was investigatory and invalid)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view seizure requires lawful vantage point, immediately apparent incriminating character, and lawful right of access)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (discusses limitations on warrantless searches and seizures)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (distinguishes brief investigative detention from full seizure of property)