840 N.W.2d 589
N.D.2013Background
- Officers observed a camper in a commercial parking lot at ~1:30 a.m. with its door swinging open; a flashing light was seen inside and the door repeatedly shut and opened.
- When officers approached, they smelled a very strong odor of marijuana emanating from the camper; a woman (Stroud) initially said no one was inside but said the occupant was someone else; Wayne Otto emerged and was arrested on an outstanding warrant.
- Before obtaining a search warrant, officers (with guns drawn) conducted a protective/security sweep of the camper citing officer safety concerns and poor lighting; during the sweep they observed a shoebox of marijuana and baggies of a white substance believed to be meth.
- Otto moved to suppress evidence and to dismiss; the district court denied suppression, concluding a safety sweep was proper; Otto entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the suppression ruling for appeal.
- On appeal the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding the camper falls within the automobile exception and officers had probable cause to search because of the strong marijuana odor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the camper is subject to the automobile exception | Camper is movable, in a public/commercial lot, so exception applies | Camper is Otto’s residence and entitled to greater privacy | Held: Camper falls within automobile exception (readily mobilizable and not in a place regularly used for residence) |
| Whether probable cause existed to search without a warrant | Strong odor of raw marijuana provided probable cause to believe contraband was inside | Odor alone (and presence of persons) insufficient to justify a warrantless intrusion into a residence | Held: Testimony of strong marijuana odor provided probable cause; search valid under automobile exception |
| Whether protective/safety sweep was required (exigent circumstances) | Sweep justified by officer safety concerns (unknown occupants, poor lighting, high-crime area) | Presence of unidentified persons alone does not create exigency to search a dwelling | Held: Court did not reach exigent-necessity question because automobile exception and probable cause made the search unnecessary to analyze further |
| Whether K-9 sweep claims are reviewable | N/A (no relevant record) | Otto asserted K-9 search of residence area | Held: Claim not addressed—no record support so court declined to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (establishes automobile-exception factors for campers/motor homes)
- United States v. Navas, 597 F.3d 492 (2d Cir.) (trailer/camper can be treated as vehicle under automobile exception)
- State v. Doohen, 724 N.W.2d 158 (N.D.) (probable cause allows warrantless vehicle search under automobile exception)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (probable cause to search a readily mobile car permits immediate warrantless search)
- State v. Binns, 194 N.W.2d 756 (N.D.) (vehicles may be searched without a warrant under circumstances that would not justify searching a home)