State v. Sommer
800 N.W.2d 853
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Informant advised Sommer transported drugs from Washington to North Dakota; affidavit-supported warrants issued for Sommer's apartment and his business in the same building complex.
- Police observed Sommer’s white truck drive to his business after preliminary surveillance; informant’s information corroborated by business website and other details.
- Searches of Sommer’s apartment and business yielded marijuana and paraphernalia, with a dog indicating contraband; individuals at the business claimed Sommer owned some of the contraband.
- Vehicle search conducted without a warrant at the crime scene, after jail-key retrieval by detective, resulting in seizure of two to three pounds of marijuana from the spare tire.
- Sommer was charged with possession with intent to deliver/manufacture, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana; suppression motion denied; Sommer entered a conditional guilty plea.
- The court upheld the automobile search under the automobile exception, affirming the district court’s suppression ruling and rendering the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automobile exception applies to a warrantless vehicle search | Sommer argues mobility alone is not enough; requires exigent or stronger mobility | State contends mobility plus probable cause suffices under the automobile exception | Probable cause supported the search; mobility suffices without exigent circumstances |
| Whether mobility considerations or exigent circumstances govern the automobile exception | Sommer asserts a need to assess actual mobility and potential disposal of evidence | State relies on Zwicke and Carney: mobility and lesser privacy justify the search without exigent circumstances | Mobility is the basis for the automobile exception; exigent circumstances are not required |
| Whether the district court correctly denied suppression given the search of the vehicle without a warrant | Sommer challenges suppression ruling as unconstitutional | State maintains lawfulness under automobile exception and probable cause | Affirmed district court; suppression denied on the grounds of probable cause and mobility-based exception |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment standards were properly applied to a vehicle searched while Sommer was jailed | Sommer argues heightened privacy concerns when jailed | State argues public-place vehicle search standards apply; standard is probable cause-based | Properly applied; vehicle search valid under automobile exception |
| Whether the right standards of review support affirmance of the suppression ruling | Sommer contends district court erred in findings/facts | State maintains adequate evidence supports the court’s legal standard | District court’s findings and legal standard are supported; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beane, 770 N.W.2d 283 (N.D. 2009) (reaffirms deferential review of suppression rulings and facts-to-law during appellate review)
- City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 1994) (standard for evaluating suppression decisions under Beane framework)
- State v. Dudley, 779 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 2010) (legal standard: questions of law reviewed de novo; findings reviewed for support by evidence)
- State v. Zwicke, 767 N.W.2d 869 (N.D. 2009) (explains automobile exception and mobility concepts)