State v. Hyde

. mistrial. and re- therefore reverse We for a new trial.

mand Kapsner Carol Ronning Fair

Lisa McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers E. Tufte

Jerod VandeWalle, C.J.

Gerald W.

2017 ND 186 Dakota,

STATE North Plaintiff Appellee

Floyd HYDE, Erik Defendant Appellant

No. 20160437

Supreme Court North Dakota.

Filed 7/31/2017 Schell,

Ashley K. At Assistant State’s Minot, N.D., torney, plaintiff ap pellee. N.D., Minot, Craig, R.

Kyle for defen- appellant. dant Tufte, Justice. Floyd Hyde appeals a criminal entering plea

judgment after conditional drug charges. to three guilty plea, his no, Q the dis- there right appeal nothing reserved And was re- layed sup- you dispatch trict court’s denial of his motion that any sort press Hyde argues evidence. the district was imminent suicide such Mr. Hyde standing finding ledge, on a court erred the warrantless en- sitting head, to gun with a his try anything his home fell within or to that nature? requirement. the warrant We and to to reverse remand him with- No, allow A sir. plea. his

draw Deputy Olson testified that when

she deputy and another Hyde’s arrived at residence, initially spoke she to I the land- lord. The landlord told her that had he Two County deputies entered [¶2] Ward night Hyde seen before. The landlord Hyde’s response residence in to gave deputies Hyde no indication that that he At the time of suicidal. any signs had shown of distress. He went Hyde’s into resi- warrantless if say gold on to that in the SUV was dence, to information available driveway, Hyde probably was home. The facts, about deputies following included the parked the driveway. SUV The there are no conflicts in which material landlord said Hyde also he believed testimony. May At 8:41 on a.m. a.m., asleep. Starting at 10:20 deputies Hyde’s County brother called Ward began knocking approxi- the door. After Department. Sheriffs He the non- called mately minutes of knocking repeated- nine emergency dispatch A line rather than 911. answer, ly without deputies entered log report- dispatch summarized the call as residence the unlocked Hyde ing calling had his mother that “been door. crying with The dis- suicidal ideations.” residence, Upon entering the log patch also noted that calls deputies room living checked the and night his mother “last occurred about bedroom, Hyde. In bedrooms for the first re- quarter dispatcher 01:00 hrs.” The Hyde, they deputies did not see but request corded for a welfare check marijuana plant did see a on the floor. The Routine, Priority: Deputy “Status: Low.” deputies Hyde asleep in located the second Olson testified as the infor- follows about deputy Hyde bedroom. One shook to wake dispatcher: mation she from received deputy, Hyde very To him. seemed A I dispatch remember is advis- What groggy. Hyde deputies told the that he check, us that ing there was a welfare pill night The sleeping taken a before. asked welfare check. Brother called into deputy inquired Hyde’s mental health. in for welfare check and he had called Hyde acknowledged having a that he was night mother his numerous times time, rough he was suicidal made okay. Hyde deputy would be advised Okay. to, Q relationship guess, I marijua- that she confiscate the needed circumstances, though, there sort plant na saw the first bedroom. she quote Hyde saying direct from he Mr. Hyde agreed and told her she could have per going any- or se was kill himself plants. Hyde all of the then showed relayed thing like that that was deputy marijuana he had additional where you, dispatch just correct? It was plants. on the information obtained Based general sort of suicidal comments? during entry, the initial warrantless depu- A search obtained. The Correct. warrant was Stewart, bagged yielded search of ties’ reasonable. ¶ 12, plants, A thirty-five marijuana

marijuana, warrantless marijuana constitutionally paraphernalia. is not unreasonable search if an warrant re search charged with manufactur- circumstances, exigent quirement, such as drug para- marijuana, possession of ing Id, exigent We cir applies, defined phernalia, possession a controlled emergency situation re as “an cumstances sup- Hyde brought a substance. motion quiring prevent imminent swift action press the after evidence found danger proper to life damage serious a warrant. entered residence without escape ty, or forestall the imminent district court the motion. denied or of suspect destruction evidence.” State guilty of on plea entered a conditional 539, (N.D. 1981) Nagel, v. 308 N.W.2d 543 the dis- Hyde argues charges. On appeal, 112, Page, v. (quoting 277 N.W.2d State his motion to denying trict in court erred 1979)). (N.D. 117 suppress, because the did not to„ a his house and have enter warrant ] We referred this have [¶8 or exigent circumstances there were exigent circum both warrant en- emergency justify warrantless emergency exception. and as the stances try. „ Stewart, 165, 13, ¶ v. 2014 ND 851 State N,W.2d Matthews, (citing v. 2003 153 State II ¶ 108, 28). 27, Exigent 665 ND N.W.2d reviewing Our a standard commonly refers circumstances situa motion to district court’s decision on a suspects in enforcement tions which law is established: suppress well activity criminal but there is “no time give to the -district [W]e deference Michigan them to secure a warrant.” v. findings, of and we resolve court’s fact 509, 1942, Tyler, 499, 436 56 U.S. 98 S.Ct. conflicts in of affir- in favor testimony (1978). emergency excep 486 The L.Ed.2d 99, Tognotti, 2003 ND mance. State v. exigent of tion be a subset considered ¶ 5, re 663 not N.W.2d 642. “will We in circumstances which law enforcement on mo a district court a verse decision objectively an has reasonable basis be suppress ... if is sufficient tion to there “seriously injured is lieve someone competent capable support of evidence injury.” Michigan v. threatened with such ing findings, if the deci court’s Fisher, 47-48, 45, 546, 558 U.S. 130 S.Ct. is not contrary sion manifest (2009) Brigham (quoting L.Ed.2d 410 175 weight Gefroh, of v. State evidence.” Stuart, 403, 398, v. 126 547 U.S. S.Ct. ¶ 153, 7, Ques ND 801 429. 2011 N.W.2d 1943, (2006)). 164 To the L.Ed.2d ex 650 ap fully are on tions law reviewable analysis distinct, is tent the search of peal, finding of meets and whether fact presents application of the an is legal question standard law. emergency exception exigent not cir 8,¶ Reis, 30, State 2014 ND 842 N.W.2d ¶23, 13, Huber, 2011 cumstances. ND 793 845. N.W.2d 781. The Fourth Amendment I, The the United States Constitution Art.

§ 8, pro not probable require [of the North Dakota Constitution “does cause . against individuals must actually by crime] tect unreasonable motivated perceived aid or searches seizures. Warrantless render assis 23, ¶ Huber, 13, presumptively of homes are un- State 2011 searches tance.”

675 246, (quoting 607, 793 781 Mat 383 N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d 609-10 ¶ thews, (1976)). 2003 ND requirements

Three to apply must be met exigent [¶12] The circumstances emergency exception: exception normally applies when officers (1) police The have must reasonable an urgent have need to act and there is no grounds to believe that emer- get time to v. Morales, warrant. State gency at hand and immediate need (citing N.W,2d for their for the protection assistance Missouri v. McNeely, , U.S. life or property. 1558-59, 185 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1552 (2) (2013)). primarily search must not be concern deputies’ here was by entirely premised motivated intent arrest and seize evidence. suicide and Unassisted at tempted suicide been criminal (3) There be some reasonable must ba- 12-33, N.D.C.C., Chapter offenses since sis, cause, approximating probable to as- repealed Because there sociate the the area or with no reason criminal suspect activity searched, place to be home, consideration ¶ Stewart, 13, 165, 2014 ND 851 N.W.2d to get there was time a warrant is inappli 153. The is on the to prove burden State cable these circumstances. requirements that each ex of these three 41(b). parties N.D.R.Crim.P. The do not at isted of the time the warrantless dispute that deputies’ intent in enter DeCoteau, into home. 1999 ing Hyde’s to protect residence was him . ¶77, 14, 592 N.W.2d 579 from harm. Hyde challenges appeal, On [¶10] emergency exception may be [¶13] only proved the State first Supreme traced back to U.S. Court dictum Therefore, requirement. issue is suggesting may required warrant be whether law enforcement had reasonable “ officers, passing by ‘where the on the emergency grounds an believe existed street, cry help hear a shot and a for required for which “an immediate need ” demand entrance the name of the law.’ protection for of life or assistance 361, (8th v. Gauper, Root 438 F.2d 364 ¶ Stewart, 13, 165, property.” 2014 ND 851 Cir.1971) (quoting McDonald v. United N.W.2d 153. States, 191, 69 335 S.Ct. U.S. 93 (1948)). early 153 L.Ed. This characteriza requirement, For first [¶11] provides guidance degree tion as what apply objective we an standard of reason urgency of satisfies the “immediate need” ableness: the facts to the “would available by for required emergency assistance at of entry] officer the moment war [the exception. a man rant of caution in reasonable appropri that the taken was belief action applying emergency Our cases Matthews, 108, ¶ 33, upon ate?” 2003 ND 665 have relied direct and con- (quoting Gauper, temporaneous 28 N.W.2d Root v. 438 observations establish an 361, (8th 1971) (internal Cir. protect F.2d 364-65 for assistance omitted)). Nelson, An quotation property. marks officer’s life v. 2005 ND be or State ¶11, 15, (remanding lief that 691 emergency an exists “must 218 N.W.2d grounded in facts empirical rather than factual determination of whether conflict- subjective Matthews, ing feelings.” regarding apparent at 29 an testimony asth- Mitchell, (quoting People 173, presence ma attack in officer’s consti- v. N.Y.2d tion have been emergency justify that someone inside tuted an sufficient inhaler); v. injured.” officer’s search for an Lubenow Comm’r, Highway N.D. State 438 N.W.2d im- Resolving qualified a claim of (N.D. 1989) (holding of search Milwaukee, munity v. in Sutterfield emergency garage was within extensively Circuit discussed Seventh body personally officer observed a where application emergency exception of the car); floor to a lying next State (7th 542, 557-59 suicidal threats. 751 F.3d ¶¶ 4, 38-40, Matthews, Sutterfield, the Milwaukee Cir. emergency exception (applying treating 911 call from police received after to search house 30-45 minutes patient. patient physician regarding 911 with family member called just physician’s after left the office gunpoint); being men held at State I’ll guess go “I blow remarking, ¶¶ 16-17, Huber, 2011 ND pa- my out.” 751 F.3d at 545. The brains application emergency (affirming empty gun tient worn an holster strong exception where officer smelled pa- coming appointment. Id. Unable to locate the apart- fumes chemical ment). hours, pur- tient for the officers several statutory emergency procedure sued rejected applica courts have Other probabili- on a detention based substantial emergency exception tion of the where ty by physical harm as evi- manifested immediacy. insufficient In Peo there was attempts dence of recent threats of Davis, Michigan Supreme Court ple v. procedure at 545-46. This suicide. Id. applied the Mitchell three-factor test North similar Dakota’s reject application doc set forth in procedure treatment N.D.C.C. to a search of a motel room. 442 trine 1, Nearly § the 910, (1993) hours after (quot 25-03.1-25. nine Mich. Mitchell, call, 173, patient initial officers the at ing People 39 N.Y.2d found (N.Y. 1976)). home, entry. N.Y.S.2d 347 N.E.2d 607 patient the refused them and Responding dispatch to a that hotel man They forcibly Id. at the 546-47. entered ager gunfire had heard in one motel her into at custody. home took Id. and rooms, officers at the hotel. Id. at arrived ap- Sutterfield, Both here and in [1Í17] possible report 921. The referenced wit proximately passed nine hours between other and ness contained little detail the en- report initial and the warrantless directly not did indicate that someone was try. specific In information contrast injured. personally Id. not The officers did officers, presented to the the Sutterfield at anything hear shots observe the hotel re- information about was farther support a conclusion that someone was threat, moved, a specific was not and did injured or in need of immediate aid. In treating physician. not from a come suspi The officers knocked and became Sutterfield, the court officers’ the found occupant cious when the “took min several entry reasonable, objectively relying (“The open utes the door.” Id. fact mere compliance statutory the with the officer’s delayed that she in the opening door does emergency procedure as detention well not, judgment, support our reasonable specificity the source the person belief that a the within room was here not aid.”). threats. The record does indicate Ultimately, need any given consideration emergency excep court that the concluded procedure not treatment avail- emergency tion did officers to “forc[e] allow dwelling § specula pro- into a on the basis of able under N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-25 to involuntary vide treatment those passed at risk mation multiple peo- of suicide. ple. Hyde spoke mother, to his who told brother, who dispatcher, told the who Hyde argues the district court responding told the deputies. inAs in relying vague report erred on a of sui- telephone game played children, by previous comments from evening cidal chain, people more in the greater in finding grounds reasonable to believe likelihood that the message change will there In hand. despite the best accurately efforts to pass denying Hyde’s motion, suppression on an message. accurate The Free Dictio- district court stated: Farlex, nary by Telephone (game) (July instance, In exigent this circum- 2017) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ stances does come into play. Telephone-)-(game); see also United States may officers believed harm Gonzalez, 2010 WL fn 12 *7 (or already himself) himself had harmed (N.D. Ga. Even between what the They and needed assistance. ... were dispatcher wrote in log (“crying” by told others in the community that if ideations”) “suicidal and what the deputy parked vehicle was outside heard from dispatcher (“just general home, he’d be there. The officers ob- comments”), sort of suicidal there is a loss vehicle, served the and entered the change detail and in emphasis. The rec- knowing Hyde present, ord does not tell us what detail began the search which turned up the been or changed lost between orig- evidence, Hyde. then All three re- inal statement to his mother and what his quirements the exigent circum- brother told dispatcher. Nothing the stances have been met. officers directly observed corroborated the below, As we explain the record To contrary, the landlord’s shows the evidence available to the depu- comments that Hyde not did seem dis- ties at the time the search did night before tressed contradicted the grounds establish reasonable to believe information from brother. and an immediate protect Hyde’s assistance to life. Second, of “suicidal combination, reliability, the lack of vague comments” is and lacks sufficient information, vagueness of the and the de- to support detail a reasonable basis to lay in response lead us conclude that the ongoing believe there an emergency. was district application emergen- court’s of the Suicidal may indicate an immi- comments cy exception against was the manifest nent of a attempt, likelihood suicide but weight of the evidence. they may not. The were not in- First, the information threat, [¶20] available to formed about weapon specific a the officers not on was its face nor attempt reliable were a they told suicide that its source was remote and the officers imminent. The court simply district found corroboration. Hyde first-hand The call to “[t]he officers believed harm himself) (or dispatcher Hyde’s was from brother. himself already had harmed member, Coming from family the source and needed assistance.” The district court of the information not questions, explain does raise not did what details led it to con- but conveyed information any Hyde that clude that assistance may have “suicidal comments” were made to required immediately. some- needed was else, Hyde’s one mother. By specifically the time it court not did find a for need deputies, they assistance, reached the infor- only Hyde knew immediate that require entering they to show assistance.” cases before also tends “needed Our sidestep genuinely for assistance reasonable belief there need lacked requirement, merely not “[W]ait[ing] warrant for emergency. was an outside need assistance. minutes ... not consistent several is with that of a who that man believes wounded Third, the more than nine-hour persons might lying inside house delay between comments and Gauper, awaiting attention.” Root v. against weighs finding there was search Cir.1971). (8th F.2d That an offi need an immediate for assistance. The re- stops preclude cer knock does not sponding deputies want reasonably would however, finding each emergency; addi Hyde ensure not followed weight delay lends more to the con tional Every with his suicidal emer- any clusion for assistance not that gency point. some If an ends at there was Matthews, an State immediate need. mother, emergency when called his (“In 35, 665 N.W.2d 28 passage substantially time reduced emergency exception that upholding an ex an likelihood remained immedi- ists, courts have limited some doctrine ate need for assistance nine hours later. fall automatically held some situations Milwaukee, See Sutterfield scope, delayed its such as a re (7th (“at outside 2014). Cir. F.3d some sponse emergency....”) (citing point, passage time will undermine Root, F.2d notion that aid re- quired”). reasons, these For we conclude application emergen- no one district court’s The record treated shows Hyde’s cy exception against emergency. these comments as manifest a,m. weight to his mother 12:45 evidence. calls were about The record does show she called

anyone help informing than other Ill Hyde’s It is whether she brother. unclear judg- reverse the district court [¶26] We immediately brother or wait- called ment to allow and remand with- morning. Hyde’s ed next brother until the plea. draw non-emergency dispatch line at called morning. dispatcher 8:34 the next who E. Tufte [¶27] Jerod catego- took the call from brother J. Daniel Crothers as rized the matter not Routine, Priority: Low.” “Status: Ronning Kapsner Carol responding deputies.arrived at [¶24] The VandeWalle, Justice, dissenting. Chief shortly a.m. residence before 10:20 I respectfully dissent. [¶28] into Rather than rush the house to render assistance, they spoke majority heavily to upon first relies Hyde’s deputies began jurisdiction: landlord. The cases from our outside Davis, knocking repeatedly People door at v. 442 the 10:20 Mich. 497 N.W.2d (1993) reasonably a.m. The believed deputies Mil of Sutterfield Hyde (7th knocking waukee, home. was Such insistent Cir. In F.3d patient at time to prompt people Sutterfield, that would most suicidal com made obligation But to answer the door. there is ments her doctor. 751 F.3d at 545. As out, to points a knock at fact it took majority answer the door. The the officers deputies approximately that the to pa- knocked nine minutes nine hours locate the a family Id. at 546-47. When the officers did who tient. member identified himself to them law patient, entry locate the she refused in Additionally, enforcement. Sut- nonetheless, terfield, home, Davis into her the the officers answered door law but patient’s knocking enforcement’s way announcing forced their into home. the and forced their into the insignificant; way This is not enforce motel room. Id. law Although N.W.2d it able to confirm is true that ment officers were that the Davis have concealing could been patient through person her had not followed with aid, in need of law enforcement patient the had was able threat suicide because Davis’s However, here, observe demeanor op- the the answered door. portunity question her report- about deputies not able confirm were that ed shots. No such'interaction possible was comments; Hyde did not act ón his suicidal here; no one to Hyde’s answered door nor Hyde never came to door did the Indeed, Hyde residence. come to the deputies observe indication move any door, I would in joined majority’s throughout inside the ment residence opinion. of knocking yelling. minutes nine [¶32] With the facts available Davis, Michigan Supreme deputies at the of their into time an emergency

Court found there was not Anderson jured.” individual motel, motel and from an informant whose certainable has a situation when ty also noted anonymous caller several minutes did than ambiguous report one claimed to be the cross information obtained from We have stated “suggest at 921-22. at 921. was unable to gave informant,” Dir., street. ¶ 15, law enforcement came from the first two motel report law higher that N.D. 887 N.W.2d Id. enforcement received identity open wrong of shots any person “information from motel room took indicia at 922. The Dep’t shots court noted the give manager of rooms name being of 918). its being 549 (citing door. 497 easily as and the Transp., reliabili address Karna, purely Here, court fired fired in would porting Hyde’s Hyde’s minutes—I mediate need sure at his sponse his ments. residence. tect able emergency at deputies carried of aid ably believed could not have known correctly ^[1133] suicidal comments. grounds Hyde conclude Therefore, residence, Hyde Because residence was residence—-a preserve entered determined had not followed life when believe a reasonable was hand and deputies I believe with suicidal, Hyde believe their assistance Hyde’s and there was no re- deputies’ the deputies they family life, appropriate his knocking for nine At there was residence, immediate need entered I the time the would through entrance into district member re- had reasori- he had reason- to pro- person affirm. to en- likely court com- with they im- .an reported he brother and VandeWalle, C.J. [¶34] Gerald W. their mother numerous times the called Fair McEvers Risa previous night he made several sui where This information cidal higher

Hyde’s brother has a indicia

reliability from purely because it rather, informant;

anonymous it came

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Hyde

Court Name: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 31, 2017

Citation: 899 N.W.2d 671

Docket Number: 20160437

Court Abbreviation: N.D.