Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Andrew CANFIELD, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2013-12-19
Citations: 840 N.W.2d 620
Docket Number: No. 20130141
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Andrew CANFIELD, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: [¶ 11] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and DANIEL J. CROTHERS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 840
Pages: 620–625

Head Matter:
2013 ND 236
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Andrew CANFIELD, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 20130141.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Dec. 19, 2013.
Nathan K. Madden, Assistant State’s Attorney, Williams County State’s Attorney Office, Williston, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Jeff L. Nehring, Williston, ND, for defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
KAPSNER, Justice.
[¶ 1] Andrew Canfield appeals from district court judgments entered upon conviction of four drug related offenses and from a district court order denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his dormitory room. A lack of evidence in the record makes meaningful appellate review of the issues presented impossible in this case; we reverse the judgments of conviction and remand for further proceedings.
I
[¶ 2] The district court stated that the following facts did not appear to be in dispute:
On October 2, 2012, Officer Dickerson of the Williston Police Department responded to a call of possible drug use in a dorm room at Williston State college. He met with Heather Fink, the housing director at WSC, who indicated reports of the smell of marijuana in Room 3A in which Defendant lived. Ms. Fink indicated that all students sign a housing agreement allowing WSC staff to enter rooms for any reason. She proceeded to knock on the door which was answered by a female occupant. Ms. Fink asked for permission to enter and was granted access while Officer Dickerson stayed in the entryway.
While in the entryway, Officer Dickerson observed two glass pipes he believed were used for ingesting drugs. He then entered the residence and questioned the individuals present in the room. Defendant, who was in class at the time, was escorted back to the room where he was handcuffed, Mirandized, and questioned. After questioning, Defendant was ultimately arrested for various drug offenses.
[¶ 8] Canfield moved to suppress "any and all evidence recovered as a result of an illegal search of his residence and an illegal interrogation." His motion to suppress indicated that it was "supported by attached brief and supporting materials." His brief in support of motion to suppress evidence indicated that "[a] hearing on this matter [was] expected to show" that the facts alleged by Canfield had occurred. Attached to his brief were two exhibits: the Williston State College Housing Contract and Application and the Williston State College Student Code of Conduct. No other evidence was submitted by Can-field, and his notice of motion to suppress evidence indicated that the motion was "being submitted by the Defendant without a request for oral argument." As a result, no evidentiary hearing was held on the motion to suppress. The parties did not make a formal stipulation of facts for the court to consider. The district court ultimately denied Canfield's motion, finding that the plain view doctrine applied, exigent circumstances existed authorizing entry into the room, and the subsequent questioning was not in violation of Can-field's Miranda rights.
[¶ 4] After a jury trial, Canfield was found guilty of ingesting a controlled substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. He was found not guilty of an additional charge of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (baggies).
II
[¶ 5] On appeal, Canfield argues the district court erred in finding the search of Canfield's dormitory room was not unreasonable. He argues that consent, third-party consent, consent through his dormitory contract, and plain view and exigent circumstances did not justify the warrant-less search, thus requiring suppression of all evidence seized under the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The State argues that consent, consent through the dormitory contract, and plain view and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. Because the district court's order upheld the warrant-less search as reasonable only on the grounds of plain view and exigent circumstances, we limit our analysis to those exceptions.
[¶ 6] When reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, this Court normally defers to the district court's findings of fact and resolves conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. State v. Graf, 2006 ND 196, ¶ 7, 721 N.W.2d 381. Generally, a district court's decision to deny a motion to suppress will be affirmed if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the court's findings and if its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. "Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law." Id. (citation omitted).
[¶ 7] "Prima facie evidence to support a motion to suppress is not required in a party's moving papers." State v. Fitterer, 2002 ND 170, ¶ 6, 652 N.W.2d 908 (citing Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751, 761 (9th Cir.1967)). Supporting affidavits or other evidence are permissive, but not required. Fitterer, at ¶ 6 (citing N.D.R.Crim.P. 47). The motion itself is enough to reach a hearing on the motion, provided it gives adequate notice of the issues raised. Id. at ¶ 9. A defendant then has the burden of establishing a prima facie case at the motion hearing before the State is required to put on evidence. Id. at ¶ 10 (citing City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 2002 ND 34, ¶ 6, 639 N.W.2d 478; State v. Glaesman, 545 N.W.2d 178, 182 n. 1 (N.D.1996)). To do so, the defendant must make an evidentiary showing that the search and seizure was illegal. Fitterer, at ¶ 10; Jerome, at ¶ 6. Once a prima facie case has been established, the burden of persuasion shifts to the State to justify its warrantless search. Jerome, at ¶ 6. While "[t]here may be some cases in which a suppression motion is capable of decision based on stipulated faets[,] . trial courts should be wary of dispensing with an evi-dentiary hearing when[ ] . the parties have raised a flurry of Fourth Amendment issues." State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 18, 566 N.W.2d 410.
[¶ 8] Meaningful appellate review of the issues in this case is impossible in light of the lack of evidentiary support for the district court's decision. An evidentia-ry hearing on the suppression motion was waived, and a review of the record shows no supporting evidence was offered with either party's brief. The parties did not stipulate to the facts. Furthermore, the district court's description of the allegedly undisputed facts did not match either Can-field's or the State's alleged facts, and neither of those matched the other. On this record, a reviewing court cannot defer to the district court's findings of fact. An evidentiary hearing will be necessary. As we did in Avila, we remand for an eviden-tiary hearing where the record can be supplemented with the evidence necessary for the court to reach an informed decision about the circumstances leading to the officer's decision to make entry into the dormitory room.
[¶ 9] On remand, we caution the district court that this Court has held that an officer's mere fear or speculation that evidence might be destroyed does not justify a warrantless search and seizure under the exigent circumstances exception. See State v. Ackerman, 499 N.W.2d 882, 886 (N.D.1993). This Court has defined exigent circumstances 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. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198, ¶ 13, 821 N.W.2d 373 (quoting State v. DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15, 592 N.W.2d 579).
Ill
[¶ 10] We reverse the judgments and remand for further proceedings.
[¶ 11] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and DANIEL J. CROTHERS, JJ., concur.