State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180

Ostby was involved in a controlled drug buy where a confidential informant obtained methamphetamine from a third party; $500 was provided for the purchase.
Ostby was stopped by police after the black Nissan he drove veered over a solid white line while entering I-94; he had a suspended license and warrants.
A search revealed methamphetamine, a glass pipe, and later additional methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside the Nissan.
Police impounded the vehicle, conducted an incomplete inventory, photographed items, and later sold the vehicle and remaining items at auction.
Ostby was charged with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia; a suppression motion was denied and a jury found him guilty.
The State sought to introduce evidence of undiscovered material; Ostby challenged the preservation of evidence and requested an adverse inference instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the traffic stop legally justified?	Ostby (State) suppression denied; stop supported by practicable-lane violation and reasonable suspicion from controlled buy observations.	Ostby contends the stop was pretextual with no articulable suspicion.	Stop valid; not pretextual; supported by practicable-lane violation and reasonable suspicion.
Did the State violate due process by failing to preserve evidence?	Ostby asserts bad faith destruction of material/exculpatory evidence.	State argues no bad faith; cannot show material/exculpatory evidence; adverse inference given.	No due process violation; no showing of bad faith; adverse-inference instruction allowed.
Was there sufficient evidence to sustain possession with intent to deliver?	Substantial methamphetamine and paraphernalia found; supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence insufficient to prove intent to deliver.	Yes; evidence sufficient for possession with intent to deliver.
Did the district court err in handling suppression/adverse inference issues relevant to the trial?	Adverse-inference instruction correctly given based on NDJI-Civil C-80.30.	Instruction inadequate or improper extraneous to case.	Instruction properly given; no error affecting outcome.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1996) (pretextual nature of traffic stops does not defeat legality if supported by reasonable suspicion)
State v. Reis, 842 N.W.2d 845 (N.D. 2014) (standard for reviewing suppression decisions; legal questions are fully reviewable)
State v. Wolfer, 780 N.W.2d 650 (N.D. 2010) (reasonable suspicion analysis and practicable-lane considerations)
State v. Mohl, 784 N.W.2d 128 (N.D. 2010) (traffic-stop grounds regardless of actual innocence or guilt relevance)
State v. Gregg, 615 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2000) (investigatory stops based on observed traffic conduct)
State v. Bartch, 743 N.W.2d 109 (N.D. 2007) (DUI and traffic-stop precedents in North Dakota)
State v. Oliver, 724 N.W.2d 114 (N.D. 2006) (evidence obtained during a valid stop is admissible)
State v. Loh, 618 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 2000) (practicable-lane statute applications)
State v. Burris, 545 N.W.2d 192 (N.D. 1996) (traffic stops and evidentiary implications)
State v. Schmidt, 817 N.W.2d 332 (N.D. 2012) (due process and preservation of evidence; adverse-inference considerations)