State v. Schneider, 2014 ND 198

Schneider was parked on a gravel road near the Double Ditch historical site at ~11 p.m. Deputy Vyska activated flashing lights and parked behind Schneider; the deputy approached on foot with a flashlight.
Schneider was asked if anything illegal was in the vehicle and consented to a search; he later consented to a pat-down and marijuana was found in a bottle and container, with additional marijuana found during a vehicle search.
The district court found the deputy’s conduct was a welfare check, not a seizure, and denied the motion to suppress; Schneider pled guilty conditionally to possession of marijuana by a driver and to possession of drug paraphernalia.
Schneider appealed, challenging the deputy’s pre-arrest conduct as a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring reasonable suspicion; the district court’s findings were accepted, and the appeal was reviewed de novo for legal questions.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, concluding no seizure occurred under the Fourth Amendment; a dissent would have reversed, treating the officer’s approach as a seizure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a Fourth Amendment seizure given the deputy’s approach	Schneider argues the flashing lights and approach by the deputy were a seizure	State argues it was a welfare check/community caretaking encounter, not a seizure	No seizure; intervention deemed non-coercive and voluntary
Did the deputy’s show of authority with flashing lights convert the encounter into a stop	Langseth-like show of authority created seizure	No seizure; Halfmann guidance supports non-coercive contact	Not a seizure; encounter remained non-coercive
Whether deputy’s community caretaking encounter allowed development of reasonable suspicion	Caretaking can lead to suspicion if observations arise	No need for suspicion; no coercion and consent obtained	Encounter permissible; did not force seizure; consent obtained and searches upheld

State v. Jerome, 639 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 2002) (deference to trial court findings in suppression matters; seizure requires restraint of liberty)
Abernathey v. Dep’t of Transp., 768 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2009) (casual encounter not a seizure if not coercive; conversational approach allowed)
State v. Langseth, 492 N.W.2d 298 (N.D. 1992) (pursuit with flashing lights converts encounter into seizure when moving vehicle; lights used to stop)
State v. Halfmann, 518 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1994) (amber lights used for traffic flow, not restraint; not initial seizure)
State v. Loh, 618 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 2000) (great deference to suppression findings; burden on defendant to show seizure)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community caretaking described as divorced from criminal detection)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (consent searches permissible where individual free to decline)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (no seizure where person free to leave)