State v. Wilkie, 2017 ND 142

UND police Officer Anthony Thiry observed a vehicle driven by Todd Wilkie driving fast and erratically on eastbound Gateway Drive; Thiry checked the plate and saw Wilkie’s license was suspended.
Thiry activated overhead lights to stop the vehicle before it reached the intersection of Gateway Drive and N. Columbia Road; the vehicle did not stop, continued through the intersection, cut into a parking lot, ran a stop sign, and later disabled after hitting a median; Wilkie fled on foot and was arrested.
Wilkie was charged with reckless endangerment, eluding a peace officer, leaving the scene, and driving under suspension; he moved to suppress evidence and dismiss, arguing the UND officer lacked jurisdiction to stop him.
The district court found UND owned the real property under the eastbound lane of Gateway Drive (subject to a public easement), so Officer Thiry was within UND police jurisdiction when he activated lights and attempted the stop.
The court further found Thiry was in hot pursuit after Wilkie failed to stop, permitting pursuit and arrest beyond campus boundaries; Wilkie conditionally pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Thiry had jurisdiction to initiate the traffic stop	UND: Thiry was on property owned by UND (even if subject to an easement), so campus police had concurrent jurisdiction to act “at its institutions”	Wilkie: The public easement meant the roadway was not “at [UND] institutions,” so campus officers lacked authority to stop him there	Court: Sufficient evidence showed UND owned the land under the eastbound lane; an easement does not extinguish ownership, so Thiry had jurisdiction to initiate the stop
Whether Thiry’s authority extended beyond campus because of hot pursuit	UND: Thiry activated lights on UND property and Wilkie’s failure to stop created immediate pursuit, allowing extension of authority under hot pursuit doctrine	Wilkie: Contends lights were not activated while in UND jurisdiction, so hot pursuit cannot justify extraterritorial action	Court: Thiry testified he activated lights on UND property and pursued immediately; hot pursuit under §40-20-05 permitted extension of arrest authority

Kroschel v. Levi, 866 N.W.2d 109 (2015) (statute allows campus officers concurrent jurisdiction at institutions but does not authorize action outside institutions)
State v. Knox, 873 N.W.2d 664 (2016) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings; deference to district court fact findings)
State v. Bauer, 863 N.W.2d 534 (2015) (suppression review principles cited)
Hjelle v. J.C. Snyder & Sons, 133 N.W.2d 625 (1965) (public easement does not extinguish landowner’s title)
Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 797 N.W.2d 770 (2011) (an easement is a limited interest that does not relinquish ownership)
Burleigh County Water Resource Dist. v. Burleigh County, 510 N.W.2d 624 (1994) (landowner retains ownership subject to public right to travel)
State v. Demars, 738 N.W.2d 486 (2007) (officer authority to arrest extends beyond geographic jurisdiction when in hot pursuit)
Johnson v. Dep’t of Transp., 683 N.W.2d 886 (2004) (officer outside jurisdiction lacks official capacity absent statutory authorization)