930 N.W.2d 77
N.D.2019Background
- Traffic stop in Dec 2017 by McLean County deputy for speeding; vehicle one-and-a-half miles from Max.
- Deputy approached four times; observed a firearm, passenger smoking, and both occupants provided IDs.
- Deputy ran background checks showing prior convictions (including drug offenses) but no active warrants or probation; Wills produced an FBI "UPI" document concerning firearm possession.
- After preparing a written warning and deciding to search the vehicle, deputy asked for consent; Wills refused.
- Deputy had a K-9 sniff vehicle perimeter after instructing occupants to remain; K-9 alerted at passenger door; search uncovered controlled substances and paraphernalia.
- Wills conditionally pled guilty reserving right to appeal denial of suppression motion; district court denied suppression; Supreme Court majority reversed and remanded to allow plea withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wills) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputy had reasonable suspicion to continue detention after traffic stop concluded | Deputy lacked renewed reasonable, articulable suspicion; continued seizure was a "mere hunch" and violated Fourth Amendment | Totality of circumstances (smoking/nervousness, indirect route, prior convictions, firearm, deputy's training) provided reasonable suspicion to extend stop and conduct K-9 sniff | Court held deputy did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify continued detention/search; suppression should have been granted and plea withdrawal permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schmidt, 864 N.W.2d 265 (deference to district court findings on suppression)
- State v. DeCoteau, 592 N.W.2d 579 (factual findings supported by competent evidence)
- State v. Ostby, 853 N.W.2d 556 (reasonable suspicion as question of law)
- State v. Deviley, 803 N.W.2d 561 (continued seizure after traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Adan, 886 N.W.2d 841 (nervousness can be factor in reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Fields, 662 N.W.2d 242 (reasonable suspicion requires more than a mere hunch; criminal history can be considered)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (officer inferences based on training and experience)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (totality of circumstances may supply reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Huerta, 655 F.3d 806 (officer entitled to assess situation via training)
- Seymour v. City of Des Moines, 519 F.3d 790 (require explanation connecting training to observed facts)
- United States v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 601 (officer must articulate how training gives significance to facts)