State v. Black

960 N.W.2d 820

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.James Scott BLACK, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200256

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

FILED JUNE 3, 2021

Rebecca L. Flanders, State's Attorney, Cavalier, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.

Jensen, Chief Justice.

[¶1] James Scott Black appeals from a criminal judgment entered after his conditional guilty plea to ten counts of possession of certain materials prohibited, class C felonies. Black argues the district court was required to suppress evidence obtained during an unreasonable search following an improper initial entry into his home. Black also argues the court was required to suppress evidence obtained during a subsequent search of his home pursuant to a search warrant that lacked probable cause. We conclude the initial search was not unreasonable and the subsequent search warrant was valid. We affirm.

I

[¶2] On June 3, 2015, Pembina County deputies responded to a noise complaint at an apartment complex. The complaint included information that there was a male yelling he was going to kill someone in the apartment adjacent to the complaining party. The complaining party stated he heard a man inside the apartment throwing objects, yelling, and saying he was going to kill everyone inside the apartment. The complaining party assumed there was more than one person in the apartment even though he did not hear other voices.

[¶3] When the deputies arrived at the apartment complex, the complaining party directed the deputies to the noisy apartment. As the deputies approached the apartment's door, they could hear loud noises within the apartment but were unable to ascertain any recognizable statements. The deputies knocked and identified themselves three separate times. After the third knock and identification, Black cracked the door open slightly. The deputies observed through the slightly opened door that Black was wearing only his underwear. The deputies did not observe any signs of injury on Black's person but noted that Black appeared to be intoxicated.

[¶4] While the deputies spoke to Black through the slightly opened door, Black appeared upset. Black was initially uncooperative with the deputies by refusing to give identifying information. Black yelled at the deputies to leave saying, "F—off;" "Come back with a warrant;" and "I will hold you in contempt of court." Black also made multiple attempts to close his door on the deputies. To prevent Black from closing the door, a deputy would place his foot in the doorway.

[¶5] Black eventually provided his name. The deputies told Black they would not leave until they confirmed no one within the apartment was harmed. After approximately five minutes, Black opened the door and said, "Look, nobody's here," or something to a similar effect. The deputies then entered the apartment and conducted a safety sweep.

[¶6] While inside the apartment, the deputies observed a computer monitor displaying content they thought established probable cause to believe Black was in possession of child pornography. The deputies subsequently applied for a search warrant. The affidavit accompanying the application for a search warrant described the image displayed on the computer monitor as a prepubescent female, between the ages of nine and fourteen, in a body of water and wearing underwear and a wet tee shirt which exposed the female's areolas and nipples through the shirt. The search tags associated with the image of the prepubescent female included, "omg yes," "first," "puffy," and "nipples." There were at least fourteen other open browser tabs, hidden by the active window in the browser, with titles beginning with "Pic#" followed by a number. The image was located on a website URL that includes the term "jail bait." The website contained other images of prepubescent girls posed in a lewd manner and had a "13 age bracket" search bar. The warrant was granted, and Black was subsequently charged with ten counts of possession of certain materials prohibited.

[¶7] Black filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing the images were illegally obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional warrantless search of his residence. The district court denied Black's motion, finding there were exigent circumstances to search the apartment without a warrant.

[¶8] Black filed a second motion seeking to suppress evidence obtained after the issuance of the search warrant. Black argued the image displayed on the computer monitor was not child pornography and was not probable cause for a warrant. Further, Black argued the description of the image in law enforcement's affidavit in support of the search warrant was misleading and resulted in a defective search warrant. The district court denied the motion determining there was sufficient probable cause to issue the search warrant and determining Black failed to make a substantial showing the statements in the affidavit were false and the false statements were necessary to find probable cause.

[¶9] Black entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving for appeal the issues raised in the denied motions to suppress. On appeal, Black challenges the district court's ruling on both of his motions to suppress.

II

[¶10] This Court's standard of review on a district court's decision on a motion to suppress is well-established:

[T]his Court defers to the district court's findings of fact and resolves conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. This Court will affirm a district court decision regarding a motion to suppress if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the district court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law. This standard of review on a motion to suppress reflects the importance of the district court's opportunity to observe witnesses and assess their credibility.

State v. Morin , 2012 ND 75, ¶ 5, 815 N.W.2d 229 (internal quotations and citations omitted) (formatting omitted).

III

[¶11] Black asserts the deputies’ warrantless search of his apartment was unreasonable and in violation of both the North Dakota and United States constitutions. Black argues the district court erred in finding exigent circumstances eliminated the need for the deputies to obtain a warrant before entry into his apartment because there was not an existing emergency nor was it reasonable to believe an emergency was occurring. He also argues the deputies were primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence.

[¶12] The right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. City of Fargo v. Lee , 1998 ND 126, ¶ 8, 580 N.W.2d 580. Warrantless searches and seizures inside a residence are presumptively unreasonable. Id. The government bears the burden of showing the warrantless search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Id.

[¶13] Exigent circumstances, also referred to as the "emergency exception," is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Stewart , 2014 ND 165, ¶ 13, 851 N.W.2d 153. Exigent circumstances are defined as "an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence." State v. DeCoteau , 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15, 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting Lee , 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10, 580 N.W.2d 580 ). When this Court reviews a district court's finding of exigent circumstances, the findings of fact are reviewed giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by judges and law enforcement. Morin , 2012 ND 75, ¶ 9, 815 N.W.2d 229. We apply a de novo standard of review to the ultimate determination of whether the facts constitute exigent circumstances. DeCoteau , at ¶ 15.

[¶14] This Court has recognized three requirements to apply the emergency exception to a warrantless entry:

(1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property.

(2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence.

(3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.

State v. Nelson , 2005 ND 11, ¶ 12, 691 N.W.2d 218. An officer's reasonable belief an emergency existed is reviewed under an objective standard. Id. Information obtained from an informant whose identity is easily ascertainable has a higher indicia of reliability compared to information obtained from a purely anonymous informant. State v. Karna , 2016 ND 232, ¶ 9, 887 N.W.2d 549.

[¶15] The district court found there were exigent circumstances to search Black's apartment without a warrant. Black's neighbor reported hearing a person throwing objects, angrily yelling, and making threats to kill everyone inside Black's apartment. The neighbor was on site, met the deputies when they arrived, and directed the deputies to the apartment with the noise. Although the deputies could not understand what was being said, they heard what they described as loud, agitated noises while standing outside Black's door. When Black appeared in the doorway he was wearing only underwear, upset, and uncooperative. The deputies indicated the purpose of their entry into the apartment was to conduct a safety sweep.

[¶16] While engaging in conversation with Black, the deputies made their initial entry into his apartment by extending a foot into the doorway to prevent Black from closing the door. The deputies continued speaking with Black through the slight opening of his door until Black opened the door further, and deputies entered to conduct...