*1 indepen- Indvik’s 449 N.E.2d intervening subsequent to actions dent PERRY, Plaintiff and attempt stop Indvik certain-
the officer’s Appellant, for his arrest on probable cause ly created 12.1-17-04, terrorizing. charge of § PERRY, Defendant E. carry- his action of N.D.C.C. Appellee. it reasonable for ing firearm made a loaded No. 11021. Civ. Indvik could to conclude that the. officers perpetrator of the earlier have been of North Dakota. Supreme Court incidents. gun-shooting 20, 1986. analysis is prong The second arrest was or nоt the warrantless whether a warrant is An arrest without
justified. officer has law enforcement
valid when a that the arrested
probable cause believe 29-06-15(1- felony.
person committed Lind, N.D.C.C.;
6), State cause to Probable “exists when facts arrest
a warrantless police officer’s within a
and circumstances reasonably
knowledge and of which are sufficient
trustworthy information caution person of reasonable
warrant has been or is
believing that an offense Lind, po- supra. The
being committed”. probable cause to effectu- had
lice officers arrest under 29-06- a warrantless
ate
15(1-6), arrest The warrantless N.D.C.C.
is valid.
III. or not the trial
The next issue whether admitting erred in into evidence Indvik
firearm taken from asserts that the firearm
arrest. Indvik poi- as fruit of the
should be inadmissible firearm tree. We note that had the
sonous illegal following an taken from Indvik
been inadmissible.
stop it would have been independent and inter- Indvik’s dissipated taint and the
vening actions
firearm is admissible. is af- of the district court
The order
firmed. Riha, Regional J. Unit, Bismarck, plaintiff appellant. C.J.,
ERICKSTAD, and VANDE MESCHKE, JJ„ Bismarck, de- WALLE, Maury Thompson, LEVINE and C. appellee. fendant concur.
GIERKE, Justice. appeal, for this Charlеs had not fulfilled any obligations. of these The district court This is an from an order of the again affirmed the referee’s decision. Burleigh District County. Court The order affirmed the оf fact and primary The on appeal issue is whether recommendations of the referee which con- may or not the find a civil Perry cluded that Charles E. was nоt in of court when an voluntarily individual is pursuant civil of court 27- position whereby a pay his court- 10-03 of the North Century Dakota Code. support. ordered child We reversе and remand. 27-10-03, N.D.C.C., Section describes Shirley Perry Perry and Charles E. were punishable what acts are as contempt. civil 17, on divorced October 1980. Charles was Subsectiоn 8 of provides: 27-10-03 ordered per child of $125 punishable “27-10-03. Acts as civil per month child for three children. contempts. Every court of record of — may punish this state as fоr Shirley assigned rights a civil con- sup- to child tempt any person neglect port Regional guilty to the Bismarck office of of a or violation of they, a or othеr Unit misconduct turn, by attempted right remedy which a or party enforce Charles’s of a support obligation. Shirley proceeding child a civil pending was re- action or ceiving public defeated, impaired, assistance the care of the such court be impeded, three minor children. prejudiced or cases: 1984, In Marсh the District Court of Bur-
leigh County
issued an order
show cause
requiring
appear
Charles to
and show
any
“8.
expressly
other case
au-
why
cause
be
should not
held
con-
by
thorized
the code or statutes of this
tempt
of court for failure to
state,
attachment,
or where an
judgment
support.
and to
child
proceeding
punish
for а con-
tempt
usually adopted
has been
hearing
The order to show cause
practiced in a court of record to en-
held
of 1984. The referee made
force a
remedy
protect
civil
or to
findings and recommendations which con-
right
party
pro-
of a
to an action or
cluded that the matter should be continued
ceeding in such court.”
until November of 1984. The district
court,
review,
upon
affirmed the referee’s
14-08-07, N.D.C.C.,
adju-
Section
allows an
appear
decision. Charles did not
dication of civil
hearing.
November 1984
support.
Charles failed to make child
support payments
by
as ordered
the court.
hearing
The second ordеr to show cause
adjudged
He could have been
in con-
April
was held in
of 1985. The referee
court,
tempt
contempt proceedings
again
made
and rеcommendations.
He found that Charles had an accumulated
Kitchen,
appropriate.
Kitchen v.
1985,
arrearage
$20,250,
April
as of
(N.D.1981).
and that Charles was unable to make his
support payment
hoped
amply supports
but that he
record
rectify this situation in the future.
that Charles could seek and maintain em-
ployment which would allow him to meet
The referee then recommended that
his
for child
In the
Charles not
be found
employ-
record he admits
he could find
begin making
court and that Charles
рrovide
steady
ment which would
source
payments
August
no later than
of income.
1985. The referee also recommended that
report
waged
status and
Since
1979 Charles has
monthly
regain
income on a
basis to the clerk of
battle to
farmland. The
argument
Shirley
court. As of the
of the oral
judgment granted
date
default
award-
remand with the
professes
We reverse and
farmland to her. Charles
ed the
and,
de
the district court make
to assure that
instruction that
his battle is
children,
only
ability
thus,
to the farm-
not
as to Charles’s
have title
terminations
also,
importantly, as
goal,
possibly
but
but
and more
This is a laudable
land.
employ
long-
has made to find
to be a
to what effort he
unrealistic as would
*3
in
reason
short-range goal.
secure an income
the
range rather than a
ment
to
pos
make it
ably near future which would
goal
accоmplish this
In his efforts to
words,
the trial
comply.
to
sible
traveling
years
spent
has
these last several
willingness to
determine his
court should
During
throughout
his trav-
country.
the
has
comply. If it is concluded that Charles
paralegal work
apparently
he has
done
els
position
voluntarily placed himself in a
These
financially troubled farmers.
cоmply,
is tanta
where he cannot
then that
place
provided him
farmers have
with
showing
unwillingness
of
mount to
pocket
stay during his work for them and
enforce
should be used to
money
the next farmer. Charles
to reach
the order.
help
in
effort to
has involved himself
an
tragedy
has
other farmers avert the
which
ERICKSTAD, C.J., and
MESCHKE
same time
befallen his оwn farm. At the
LEVINE, JJ., concur.
kept up
fight
his own
for the
he has
may be altruistic
farmland. His motives
WALLE, Justice, dissenting.
VANDE
nevertheless,
ignore that
part;
we cannot
not concern
The issue before us does
posi-
voluntarily placed himself in a
he has
duty
support his children.
Charles’s
whereby
tion
the deci-
That issue has been decided and
support his or
рarent’s
monthly support.
A
sion is that he must
Rather,
children is continuous and does not
appeal
her
this
concerns the method of
depend
prosperity.
Kinsella
еnforcing
support
on his or
order.
the
Kinsella,
(N.D.1970). It
The record seems to indicate that Charles Charles in civil even could find which would enable the court-ordered child failurе support voluntarily placing him to meet his child him- was due to imposed by position the divorce decree. where he was unable to do self placed request himself in a which so. But the for review of the findings does not allow him to referee’s and recommendations decree; it would from the record court of made to thе trial on behalf unwilling comply. specifically My that he is Gross re- See concerned matter. Gross, 53 N.D. 206 N.W. 795 of the record does not lead me to view operating believe that the trial court was concept under an erroneous of the law Upon reviewing the referee’s when it affirmed the and recom- and recommendations we note that there is mendations of the referee. unwillingness no of discussion Charles’s hold, Rather, comply. willing indicates this court as a the record that: Unless (1) law, hearing, find- at the 1984 the referee matter of that the trial court’s ings clearly it found that Charles was unable to erroneous (2) support; May hearing, at the abused its discrеtion hold referee, no of Charles’s Charles doubt because support, appears sincere that he could soon better conviction wrong, recоmmended no civil me that reversal and remand is futile. 1, 1985, gave August an if the trial court finds date for contempt, majority opin- as the repayment begin. should, appeаrs pun- ion to indicate it ishment, including of pen- amount alty contempt, rests the sound
discretion
the trial
a fine
Valley
nominal. Red River
Brick
PATZER,
Thomas
Corp.
Forks,
City
Grand
N.D.