State v. Stewart, 2014 ND 165

Police responded to a neighbor's welfare call about Stewart’s dog and learned Stewart’s 10-year-old daughter was alone in the trailer until about 9 p.m.; neighbors reported the trailer was filthy with significant dog feces.
Officer Poppe went to Stewart’s trailer, knocked, and the daughter (wearing a short-sleeve shirt in cold weather) answered but refused entry the first time; the officer found nothing immediately emergent on first contact.
The officer called Stewart at work and requested permission to search the home; Stewart refused to allow a warrantless search and could not identify who was watching the child.
After a 10–12 minute absence, the officer returned, spoke on the porch, and the child permitted him inside because she was cold; inside, the officer smelled and observed severe filth and feces and called Social Services.
Stewart was charged with felony child abuse/neglect; she moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The district court denied suppression, finding exigent circumstances (emergency exception) justified entry.
Stewart entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the emergency exception did not apply and inevitable discovery was inapplicable, and remanded to allow withdrawal of the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stewart)	Held
Whether officer’s warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances/emergency exception	Officer had reasonable grounds from neighbors’ reports and personal observations to believe an immediate need to protect the child existed; entry was caretaking, not investigatory	No emergency existed when officer first contacted the child; officer left and returned without any new emergent facts; entry occurred only after child consented because she was cold and Stewart had refused consent — no exigency	Entry was not justified by exigent circumstances; suppression should have been granted (reversed and remanded)
Whether evidence is admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine	Even if entry was improper, the officer would have obtained a warrant because he had probable cause and acted in good faith, so evidence would inevitably have been discovered	The State cannot circumvent the warrant requirement simply because it could have obtained a warrant; inevitable discovery does not apply where police bypassed the warrant without exigency	Inevitable-discovery doctrine does not apply; State failed to meet its burden (affirmative showing how evidence would inevitably have been found)

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry is presumptively unreasonable)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (recognizes greater privacy expectations in homes than vehicles)
State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75 (sets three-part test for emergency/exigent exception)
State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157 (discusses warrant exceptions including exigent circumstances)
State v. Gill, 2008 ND 152 (community-caretaking doctrine does not encompass dwelling-place entries)
State v. Phelps, 297 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1980) (two-part test for inevitable-discovery doctrine)
State v. Johnson, 301 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1981) (inevitable-discovery cannot validate shortcuts around warrant requirement)