State v. Petersen, 994 N.W.2d 410

Around 1:48 a.m., officers responded to a report that a parked semi had struck another vehicle in a bar parking lot and that the semi’s driver was asleep in the cab.
On arrival officers approached the semi; the passenger-side door was unlocked and an officer immediately opened it and stepped onto the running board without first attempting to elicit a response from outside the vehicle.
The officer flipped open a wallet on the passenger seat, removed an ID identifying Jered Petersen, then entered the cab, turned off the engine, and woke Petersen with a sternum rub.
After awakening, officers smelled alcohol and observed bloodshot, watery eyes; they administered field sobriety tests, a preliminary breath test, and a chemical breath test.
The district court denied Petersen’s suppression motion under the community-caretaker exception; Petersen pled guilty conditionally and appealed the suppression ruling.
The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding the initial opening and entry were an unlawful search because officers made no attempt to get a response from outside the vehicle; inevitable discovery was not established, so evidence obtained after the entry must be suppressed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers lawfully opened the semi’s door and entered under the community-caretaker exception	Community-caretaker exception justified entry to check on a possibly incapacitated driver and the intrusion was minimally intrusive	Officers trespassed; they made no effort to elicit a response from outside and thus exceeded caretaking authority	Entry was unlawful: caretaking exception did not apply because officers opened the door before attempting to get a response from outside
Whether the inevitable-discovery doctrine saves the evidence obtained after the unlawful entry	State contends evidence would have been obtained lawfully (officers would have stopped Petersen and obtained same evidence) and officers acted in good faith	State failed to show how evidence would have been lawfully discovered absent the unlawful entry	Inevitable-discovery inapplicable: State did not meet burden to show how evidence would have been discovered without the illegal intrusion

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (trespass onto vehicle with intent to obtain information constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1986) (reaching into vehicle to remove obstructing papers is a search but may be reasonable)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (officer actions at home’s curtilage analyzed against trespass and Fourth Amendment protections)
Bridgeford v. Sorel, 2019 ND 153 (N.D. 2019) (knocking on vehicle window and entering after no response can be within community-caretaking function when outside attempts fail)
United States v. Lewis, 869 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2017) (entry into vehicle without knocking found reasonable under facts where officers’ sole purpose was caretaking)
State v. Asbach, 2016 ND 152 (N.D. 2016) (discusses inevitable-discovery doctrine and its requirements)
State v. Holly, 2013 ND 94 (N.D. 2013) (sets two-part test for inevitable-discovery: no bad faith and State must prove how evidence would have been found)
State v. Boger, 2021 ND 152 (N.D. 2021) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Krall, 2023 ND 8 (N.D. 2023) (application of exclusionary rule to evidence obtained after unlawful search)