868 N.W.2d 522
N.D.2015Background
- State v. Pogue involves suppression of evidence from an initial warrantless vehicle search during a DUI case.
- Officer stopped Pogue’s vehicle for speeding; driver identified as Hernandez, with alcohol indicators.
- Driver later identifiably false; vehicle impounded and an inventory search conducted.
- Inventory search yielded drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine; officer obtained a warrant based on that evidence.
- District court suppressed the evidence, ruling the inventory search was not caretaking; State appealed.
- Court affirms suppression, holding no valid caretaking-based inventory, and good faith exception does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrantless search was a valid inventory search | Pogue | Pogue | Inventory search invalid; impound not for caretaking |
| Whether vehicle impoundment complied with caretaking/safety requirements | State | Pogue | Not shown; impoundment lacked caretaking basis |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed or saved by good faith exception | State | Pogue | Good faith exception does not apply; suppression affirmed |
| Whether the State’s appeal was ripe for review | State | Pogue | Appeal is ripe; timely despite reconsideration issue |
| Whether the district court erred in applying suppression standards | State | Pogue | District court’s suppression ruling upheld based on totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory search rationale; caretaking as basis)
- State v. Kunkel, 455 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1990) (inventory search limited to caretaking function)
- State v. Ressler, 701 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2005) (administrative caretaking inventories permissible in good faith)
- State v. Muralt, 376 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1985) (impound/inventory framework in ND)
- State v. Lanctot, 587 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 1998) (burden-shifting in suppression motion)
- State v. Glaesman, 545 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 1996) (burden to show illegality in seizure)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Vasey v. United States, 834 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1987) (tainted evidence cannot support probable cause; good faith inquiry limited)
- United States v. Fletcher, 91 F.3d 48 (8th Cir. 1996) (“close question” analysis for good faith)
- United States v. O’Neal, 17 F.3d 239 (8th Cir. 1994) (deterrence rationale for exclusionary rule)
- State v. Lunde, 2008 ND 142, 752 N.W.2d 630 (N.D. 2008) (Leon good faith applied in ND)