Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Asbach

Supreme Court of North Dakota

July 20, 2016

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Tyler Asbach, Defendant and Appellant

         Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.

          Britta K. Demello Rice (argued) and Julie A. Lawyer (on brief), Assistant State's Attorneys, Burleigh County Courthouse, for plaintiff and appellee.

          Kiara Costa Kraus-Parr, for defendant and appellant.

          OPINION

          Sandstrom, Justice.

         [¶ 1] Tyler Asbach appeals the district court's criminal judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal and seeking review of the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, he argues the district court erred in its amended order in concluding evidence found when his suitcase was searched was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Specifically, he claims the police officer was acting in bad faith to accelerate discovery of the challenged evidence by exceeding the scope of consent to search. We affirm.

         I

         [¶ 2] The relevant facts in this case are summarized in State v. Asbach, 2015 ND 280, 871 N.W.2d 820. A brief recitation of those facts regarding the issue for this appeal are summarized below.

         [¶ 3] According to testimony at the suppression hearing, in April 2014 Officer Colt Bohn stopped a vehicle for making an illegal turn. Bohn stopped the vehicle at the request of another drug enforcement officer who thought he recognized the driver of the vehicle. Bohn spoke briefly with the occupants, later identified as Tyler Asbach and Clinton Walker, who told him they were traveling in a rented car from Washington State to Indiana to visit Asbach's mother. Asbach and Walker both provided identification and denied there was anything illegal in the vehicle.

         [¶ 4] Officer Bohn testified he is a certified drug recognition expert for the Bismarck Police Department and has had training in drug interdiction specific to motor vehicles, including training to recognize suspicious indicators that there may be something illegal inside a vehicle. On the basis of this training and the travel plans of Asbach and Walker, Bohn believed they might be trafficking illegal drugs.

         [¶ 5] Officer Bohn provided the names and travel plans of Asbach and Walker to the officer who had requested the stop, and that officer said he did not know them. Bohn ran their identities through dispatch and requested another officer come to the location. Officer Bleth arrived on scene to assist, and Asbach and Walker were separated by the officers to question them about their trip. Bohn asked Asbach for consent to search the vehicle, but Asbach stated he could not give consent because Walker rented the vehicle. Bohn then spoke to Walker, who gave permission for him to search the vehicle.

         [¶ 6] Officer Bohn searched the vehicle while Asbach and Walker stood with the backup officer near his squad car. Bohn did not find anything illegal while searching the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Bohn asked Walker to open the trunk of the vehicle, and he complied. The trunk contained several backpacks and some suitcase luggage. Bohn did not ask who owned which items in the trunk before he searched them. In a suitcase, later identified as belonging to Asbach, Bohn found a large heat-sealed bag containing numerous items with marijuana leaves on them, which he believed were edible products containing marijuana. In one of the duffel bags, Bohn found a heat-sealed package of marijuana. Neither Asbach or Walker ever requested that the search be stopped. Both individuals were arrested, and Walker claimed ownership of the marijuana found in the duffel bag after his arrest.

         [¶ 7] Asbach was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of tetrahydrocannabinols with intent to deliver. He moved to suppress the evidence, which the district court denied after a hearing. The court found the officer's search of Asbach's suitcase without first obtaining his consent was illegal, but under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the contraband was admissible because the suitcase would have been searched after the marijuana was discovered in Walker's duffel bag. Asbach conditionally pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal. On appeal, this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the State proved that the officer was not acting in bad faith to accelerate discovery of the challenged evidence. State v. Asbach, 2015 ND 280, ¶ 21, 871 N.W.2d 820.

         [¶ 8] On remand, the district court found the officer was not acting in bad faith to accelerate discovery of the challenged evidence. Asbach appealed.

         [¶ 9] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. Asbach's appeal is timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(b). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.