State v. Schmidt
2015 ND 134
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Officer attempted to serve a misdemeanor bench warrant for Devan Lavallie at the address on the warrant; Deven Schmidt lived at that residence but was not the named subject.
- Schmidt answered the door, told the officer Lavallie was "sleeping in the back bedroom," and stepped back as the officer followed him toward the bedroom.
- Officer entered, observed drug paraphernalia in plain view in Lavallie’s bedroom, moved Lavallie to the living room, detained both men, and then observed more paraphernalia in the living room.
- Schmidt and Lavallie consented to a subsequent, more extensive search that turned up marijuana and paraphernalia in both bedrooms; both were arrested.
- Schmidt moved to suppress, arguing the officer’s warrantless entry and subsequent seizures were unlawful; the district court granted suppression, finding no consent and no exigent-circumstances exception.
- The State appealed, arguing the officer had authority to enter to execute the bench warrant and that the items were admissible as plain-view or discovered after valid consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the officer’s entry lawful under an arrest warrant when the warrant was for a misdemeanor? | A misdemeanor bench warrant authorizes entry to execute the arrest; probable cause supports entry regardless of felony/misdemeanor label. | No consent was given to enter; district court found entry unlawful and suppressed evidence. | The Court held a warrant supported by probable cause—felony or misdemeanor—authorizes entry to execute the warrant when there is reason to believe the named person is present. Entry was lawful. |
| Was there a reasonable basis to believe the named person (Lavallie) was present at the residence? | The officer had the warrant listing the address; Schmidt told the officer Lavallie was sleeping in the back bedroom. | District court implicitly found no lawful entry because it concluded no consent; it did not rule on presence. | The Court found Schmidt’s statement that Lavallie was in the back bedroom established a reasonable belief that Lavallie was present at the residence. |
| Were the items observed admissible under the plain-view doctrine? | Items in plain view during lawful entry are admissible. | Suppression argued because entry was unlawful. | The Court resolved the threshold entry issue in favor of the State and did not decide further issues; because entry was lawful, plain-view observations were not suppressed on that ground. |
| Was consent required for the initial entry? | No—consent was unnecessary to enter to execute a valid arrest warrant for the person believed present. | Yes—district court found no consent and suppressed. | The Court held consent was not necessary for the initial entry to execute the warrant; therefore the district court’s suppression order was reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly authorizes limited entry into a suspect’s dwelling when the suspect is believed to be inside)
- U.S. v. Spencer, 684 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1982) (misdemeanor bench warrant can permit entry to effectuate arrest under Payton)
- Kain v. Nesbitt, 156 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 1998) (same principle for misdemeanor warrant entries)
- U.S. v. Clayton, 210 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2000) (misdemeanor warrant suffices for entry when suspect is believed present)
- U.S. v. Gooch, 506 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (same)
- State v. Kitchen, 572 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 1997) (discussing requirement that officers reasonably believe the person named in the warrant is at the residence for lawful entry)