943 N.W.2d 762
N.D.2020Background
- At about 3:00 a.m., a deputy observed a vehicle pull into a gas station whose convenience store was closed; the passenger (Jankowski) exited and lingered near the building for 5–10 minutes.
- The deputy approached the vehicle, saw the driver (Selzler) inside, and observed both occupants act nervously; Jankowski said she was making a phone call though no phone was visible. The deputy did not stop them at that time.
- After leaving the lot, the vehicle accelerated quickly (front end rose), made a hard brake at a stop sign, paused twice before turning onto the highway despite light traffic, and left with the vehicle’s gas cap still open.
- The deputy followed and initiated a traffic stop without observing any traffic violation, citing the earlier observations as suspicious.
- The district court granted motions to suppress evidence seized after the stop, finding no reasonable and articulable suspicion justified the stop; the State appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify investigatory traffic stop | Deputy’s observations (late-night presence at closed store, lingering, nervous behavior, statement about a phone, abrupt acceleration/braking, open gas cap) provided objective basis to suspect criminal activity | Conduct observed was lawful/innocuous, no traffic violation occurred, officer failed to articulate any particular suspected crime — only a mere hunch | Stop was unlawful; suppression affirmed because officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and did not identify a general category of unlawful activity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bornsen, 920 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 2018) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory traffic stops; totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry)
- Gabel v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 720 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 2006) (officer must have reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop a vehicle)
- State v. Asbach, 871 N.W.2d 820 (N.D. 2015) (objective‑standard review of officer’s suspicion based on totality of circumstances)
- Kappel v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 602 N.W.2d 718 (N.D. 1999) (lawful but unusual driving plus officer experience can support suspicion of specific unlawful activity)
- Salter v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 505 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1993) (minor lawful driving deviations do not establish reasonable suspicion; ‘mere hunch’ insufficient)