IN the SUPREME COURT for the STATE of NORTH DAKOTA State
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
20160091 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 16, 2016 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA State of North Dakota, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) vs. ) Supreme Court No.: 20160091 ) District Court No.: 27-2015-CR-01154 Alexander Patrick, ) ) Defendant and Appellee. ) APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCKENZIE COUNTY NORTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE HONORABLE ROBIN A. SCHMIDT BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE Jeff L. Nehring, ND ID #05410 Whit Skinner, ND ID # 08265 NEHRING LAW OFFICE, PLLC 716 2ND ST W WILLISTON, ND 58801 [email protected] 701-577-5555 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ i Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... ii Statement of the Issues..................................................................................................................¶1 Statement of the Case....................................................................................................................¶4 Statement of the Facts ...................................................................................................................¶5 Standard of Review .......................................................................................................................¶6 Argument ......................................................................................................................................¶7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................¶29 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES City of Fargo v. Salsman, 2009 ND 15, 760 N.W.2d 123 ........................................................... ¶9 Flint v. City of Milwaukee, 91 F.Supp.3d 1032, (E.D. Wis. 2015) ..................................... ¶26, 27 Gabel v. N.D. Dep't Transp., 2006 ND 178, 720 N.W.2d 433 .................................................. ¶21 Grand Forks v. Mitchell, 2008 ND 5, 743 N.W.2d 800 ............................................................ ¶21 Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 530, (2014) ............................... ¶24, 25, 26, 27 In re Disciplinary Action Against McGuire, 2004 ND 171, 685 N.W.2d 748 .......................... ¶20 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (1983) ................................................ ¶16, 19 Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, (1974)..................................................................................... ¶19 State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, 801 N.W.2d 429 ......................................................................... ¶6 State v. Hawley, 540 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 1995) ......................................................................... ¶22 State v. Holbach, 2009 ND 37, 763 N.W.2d 761....................................................................... ¶20 State v. Kordonowy, 2015 ND 197, 867 N.W.2d 690 ............................................... ¶9, 10, 13, 15 State v. Mertz, 514 N.W.2d 662 (N.D. 1994) ............................................................................ ¶13 State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180, 853 N.W.2d 556........................................................................... ¶6 State v. Ova, 539 N.W.2d 857 (N.D. 1995) ............................................................................... ¶22 State v. Reis, 2014 ND 30, 842 N.W.2d 845 ............................................................................... ¶6 State v. Tognotti, 2003 ND 99, 663 N.W.2d 642 ........................................................................ ¶6 Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996) ................................................. ¶22 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution .................................................................. ¶8 Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ................................................................. ¶8 STATUTES N.D.C.C. § 39-21-25(2) ........................................................................................................ passim OTHER AUTHORITIES Russ Rowlett & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Units: C How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement, http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictc.html (last visited Jun 7, 2016) ...................................................................................................................................... ¶15 Russ Rowlett & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Units: L How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement, http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictl.html (last visited Jun 7, 2016) ................................................................................................................................ ¶15, 17 Russ Rowlett & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Units: W, How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement, http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictw.html (last visited Jun 7, 2016) ................................................................................................................ ¶15 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES [1] A. Whether the district court correctly ordered evidence should be suppressed because North Dakota Century Code § 39-21-25(2) was found void for vagueness. [2] B. Whether the district court correctly ordered evidence should be suppressed because Officer Ryan Chaffee did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion Alexander Patrick was violating the law. [3] C. Whether the district court correctly ordered evidence should be suppressed because there was no mistake of law by Officer Ryan Chaffee. STATEMENT OF THE CASE [4] Patrick accepts the statement of the case as framed by the State. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS [5] Patrick accepts the statement of the facts as framed by the State. STANDARD OF REVIEW [6] The North Dakota Supreme Court's standard of review for a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is well established: In reviewing a district court decision on a motion to suppress, we give deference to the district court's findings of fact and we resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. State v. Tognotti, 2003 ND 99, ¶ 5, 663 N.W.2d 642. We "will not reverse a district court decision on a motion to suppress . if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the court's findings, and if the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence." State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 7, 801 N.W.2d 429. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law. Id. State v. Ostby, 2014 ND 180, ¶ 6, 853 N.W.2d 556 (citing State v. Reis, 2014 ND 30, ¶ 8, 842 N.W.2d 845). 4 ARGUMENT 1. The district court correctly ordered evidence should be suppressed because North Dakota Century Code § 39-21-25(2) was found void for vagueness. [7] The North Dakota Century Code in question is § 39-21-25(2) and it states: Whenever a motor vehicle equipped with headlamps as herein required is also equipped with any auxiliary lamps or a spot lamp or any other lamp on the front thereof projecting a beam of intensity greater than three hundred candlepower, not more than a total of four of any such lamps on the front of a vehicle may be lighted at any one time when upon a highway [8] The language challenged in this section is candlepower. Patrick asserts the statute is unconstitutionally vague and a violation of Patrick’s constitutional rights pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. [9] The Court in State v. Kordonowy, 2015 ND 197 ¶ 16, 867 N.W.2d 690, reaffirmed the requirements the Court applies when a law is challenged for vagueness: All laws must meet two requirements to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge: (1) the law must create minimum guidelines for the reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with enforcement of the statute; and (2) the law must provide a reasonable person with adequate and fair warning of the proscribed conduct. We use the “reasonable person” standard in reviewing a statute to determine whether these two dictates are satisfied. A law is void for vagueness if it either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Id. (quoting City of Fargo v. Salsman, 2009 ND 15, ¶ 21, 760 N.W.2d 123). [10] North Dakota Century Code 39-21-25(2) cannot meet either of the two requirements stated in Kordonowy, and thus does not survive the void for vagueness challenge. The first requirement of the void-for-vagueness challenge: “the law must create minimum guidelines for the reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with enforcement of the statute.” Kordonowy, 2015 ND at ¶ 16. 5 [11] Watford City Officer Ryan Chaffee (hereinafter “Chaffee”) in his affidavit only references six white lights. (Appeal Appendix (hereinafter “App.”) App. 4). He does not once reference the lights projecting a beam of candlepower. At the District Court motion to suppress hearing, Chaffee agreed that it would be impossible to determine whether or not a motorist had a forward facing lamp with an intensity of greater than 300 candlepower. (December 21, 2015, Suppression Hearing