Filed 06/02/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 120

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Anthony Washington, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20190320

Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Jensen, Chief Justice.

Ladd R. Erickson, State’s Attorney, Washburn, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; 

submitted on brief.

Steven Balaban, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief.
1

State v. Washington

No. 20190320

Jensen, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Anthony Washington appeals from the judgment of the district court 

entered following Washington’s conditional guilty pleas to fleeing from a law 

enforcement officer and preventing arrest. Washington argues the court erred 

in denying his motion to suppress evidence because his arrest was illegal. We 

affirm.

I

[¶2] Washington was stopped for speeding. During the traffic stop, at the 

request of the officer, Washington produced a Michigan driver’s license. While 

producing his driver’s license Washington informed the officer his license had 

recently been reinstated, explained the Michigan records may not have been 

up-to-date, and noted the records may not reflect the reinstatement of his 

license.

[¶3] The officer returned to his vehicle with Washington’s driver’s license. 

The officer initiated contact with his dispatcher to confirm the status of 

Washington’s driver’s license. The dispatcher was unable to confirm the status

of Washington’s driving privileges. The officer then initiated contact with a 

second law enforcement resource to confirm the status of Washington’s driver’s 

license and was informed Washington’s driving privileges were under 

suspension.

[¶4] After being informed Washington’s driving privileges were under 

suspension, the officer returned to Washington’s vehicle to place him under 

arrest for driving with a suspended license. Washington again tried to explain 

his belief his license was valid. After an unsuccessful attempt to convince the 

officer his license was valid, Washington fled the scene. Washington was 

apprehended and charged with several offenses, including fleeing from the 

officer and preventing arrest.
2

[¶5] Washington moved to suppress evidence from and after the traffic stop 

asserting he had justifiably fled from an illegal arrest because his license was 

valid. The court denied his request and informed Washington the validity of 

the arrest was a defense he could assert at trial. Washington subsequently 

entered conditional pleas to the charges of fleeing an officer and preventing 

arrest. The remaining charges were dismissed. Washington’s conditional 

pleas of guilty preserved his right to withdraw his pleas of guilty if he were to 

prevail on this appeal.

[¶6] Washington does not contest the traffic stop. On appeal, Washington 

argues he was illegally arrested because he had a valid driver’s license at the 

time of the stop and he contends the evidence gathered as the result of the 

illegal arrest should be suppressed.

II

[¶7] When reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress 

evidence, this Court will defer to the district court’s findings of fact and resolve 

conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. State v. Vigen, 2019 ND 134, ¶ 5, 

927 N.W.2d 430. A district court’s decision on a motion to suppress will be 

affirmed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting 

the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest 

weight of the evidence. Id. Any questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, 

and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law. Id.

[¶8] Washington’s argument is dependent on his assertion that his arrest for 

driving under suspension was unlawful because he held a valid Michigan 

driver’s license at the time of the traffic stop. First, other than his own 

assertion that he held a valid Michigan driver’s license, at the time of the 

hearing on the motion to suppress there was nothing in the record to contradict 

the evidence provided by the State that the officer was informed Washington’s

license was under suspension at the time of the traffic stop. We defer to the 

district court’s findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of 

affirmance. Even if there was conflicting evidence regarding the status of 

Washington’s license, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of 
3

supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the 

manifest weight of the evidence.

[¶9] Second, we have previously recognized the exclusion of evidence is not 

the proper remedy when law enforcement acts in good faith upon objectively 

reasonable reliance on information indicating an arrest would be appropriate. 

State v. Marcum, 2020 ND 50, ¶ 18, 939 N.W.2d 840 (exclusion of evidence is 

not the proper remedy when law enforcement acts in good faith upon 

objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued); State v. 

Barth, 2001 ND 201, ¶ 15, 637 N.W.2d 369 (officer was acting “in good faith 

under color of law,” NDCC § 29-06-15, executing a warrantless arrest for 

driving with a suspended license in the presence of the officer after receiving 

confirmation through the state radio service the driver’s license was 

suspended). Here, the officer initially tried to confirm the status of 

Washington’s driver’s license through his own dispatch without success and 

then initiated contact with a second source which indicated Washington did 

not have a valid license. Even if Washington could establish he had a valid 

license at the time of the traffic stop, because the officer acted in good faith 

upon objectively reasonable reliance on information indicating an arrest would 

be appropriate, the exclusion of evidence is not appropriate.

III

[¶10] The district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

[¶11] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

I concur in the result.

Daniel J. Crothers