State v. Rogahn, 879 N.W.2d 454

CI purchased suspected marijuana from Trisha Engstrom on Oct 23, 2013; Engstrom was then seen going to Rogahn’s residence.
On Oct 29, 2013 the CI bought marijuana again from Engstrom, asked about a larger purchase, and Engstrom said she would contact her “source” and could meet that evening.
After the second meeting on Oct 29, officers observed Engstrom park and immediately walk toward Rogahn’s house (across the street from her home); within minutes the CI received pricing information from Engstrom.
Officers applied for a daytime search warrant based on the affidavit describing these events; the magistrate issued the warrant at 8:27 p.m.
Officers arrested Engstrom at a third arranged meeting and executed the warrant at Rogahn’s residence at 9:54 p.m., conducting a search that ended at 11:25 p.m.; Rogahn was charged with drug offenses.
Rogahn moved to suppress evidence (challenging probable cause and the timing of execution) and requested a Franks hearing alleging false statements in the affidavit; the district court denied suppression and denied the Franks hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for the search warrant	Affidavit’s facts (CI purchases, Engstrom going to Rogahn’s residence, rapid follow-up contact) establish nexus to residence	Affidavit lacking temporal specificity, no proof Engstrom contacted CI from inside, and no proof Rogahn’s knowledge or presence	Probable cause existed under totality of circumstances; affidavit sufficient and denial of suppression affirmed
Execution time of daytime warrant	Officers reasonably executed the daytime warrant shortly before 10:00 p.m. after obtaining it and arresting Engstrom; delay was not deliberate	Execution at 9:54 p.m. was effectively nighttime and impermissible without separate showing	Execution at 9:54 p.m. was reasonable given circumstances; denial of suppression affirmed
Franks hearing request	Affidavit included false/misleading statements (saying Engstrom was seen walking to residence and not observed leaving while contacting CI) necessary to probable cause	Statements were assumptions based on observations, not knowingly or recklessly false; no substantial preliminary showing for Franks	No Franks hearing required: defendant failed to show knowingly/recklessly false statements or that they were necessary for probable cause

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for when a defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge false statements in an affidavit)
State v. Johnson, 795 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 2011) (probable cause and review standards for suppression rulings)
State v. Ballweg, 670 N.W.2d 490 (N.D. 2003) (nexus required between place searched and contraband)
State v. Schmalz, 744 N.W.2d 734 (N.D. 2008) (courts limited to four corners of affidavit when reviewing warrants)
State v. Ebel, 723 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 2006) (application of Franks and nexus analysis)
State v. Thieling, 611 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 2000) (example of insufficient probable cause under certain facts)
State v. Holly, 833 N.W.2d 15 (N.D. 2013) (distinguishing daytime vs. nighttime warrant execution requirements)