State v. Reis, 2014 ND 30

Officer Vetter responded to a report of a pickup swerving and found a running truck matching the description parked at a recycling site; Reis was the sole occupant (passenger seat) and exited when approached.
Vetter observed Reis with slurred speech, glossy eyes, slow mannerisms and saw a handgun and several loose pills on the vehicle floorboard.
Officer Johnson located and spoke with a woman later identified as Jennifer Francisco, who appeared similarly impaired and corroborated there had been an incident; Johnson verified one of the loose pills was a controlled substance.
Vetter searched the vehicle without a warrant and seized a loaded handgun, numerous pills, drug paraphernalia, syringes, a digital scale with residue, and a locked box which he pried open and found additional pills.
Reis was charged in three consolidated criminal cases based on the evidence; he moved to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds. The district courts denied suppression, and Reis conditionally pled guilty and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vetter’s initial approach to the vehicle was a seizure	Approach was consensual encounter; officers permitted to investigate	Reis argued the approach was an unconstitutional seizure requiring suspicion	Court: Not a seizure; consensual encounter because officer did not block exit or use lights
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Reis (handcuff/place in patrol car)	Observations (running vehicle, loose pills, Reis’s impairment, handgun) justified detention	Reis contested lack of articulable suspicion for seizure	Court: Sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to seize Reis
Whether probable cause existed to search the vehicle under the automobile exception	Loose pills in plain view plus occupants’ impairment and corroboration gave probable cause for drugs	Reis argued no probable cause or warrant and search exceeded plain view	Court: Probable cause existed to search the vehicle without a warrant
Whether searching containers (including a locked box) exceeded the scope of the search	Once probable cause to search vehicle existed, officers could search containers that might conceal contraband	Reis argued opening the locked box required consent or a warrant	Court: Permitted to search containers and locked box under automobile exception; no separate consent or individualized probable cause required

State v. Tognotti, 663 N.W.2d 642 (N.D. 2003) (deference to district court fact findings on suppression)
State v. Gefroh, 801 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; warrant requirement and exceptions)
Abernathey v. Dep’t of Transp., 768 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2009) (distinguishing consensual encounters from seizures)
State v. Dudley, 779 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 2010) (probable cause to search vehicle inquiry and officer inferences)
State v. Zwicke, 767 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 2009) (probable cause formulation for vehicle searches)
State v. Guthmiller, 646 N.W.2d 724 (N.D. 2002) (considering officer training and inferences in probable cause analysis)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (foundational automobile exception to warrant requirement)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope of vehicle search extends to containers that may conceal contraband)
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (containers in vehicle searchable when probable cause exists)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (consent scope to open containers—distinguished here)
State v. Haibeck, 685 N.W.2d 512 (N.D. 2004) (application of Ross/Houghton principles in North Dakota)