Court Opinion

ID: 9843813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:43:33.633467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:13.868464
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 28] Because I would affirm the trial court in denying the motion to suppress evidence, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 29] The trial court concluded the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, but concluded the results of the search should not be suppressed, because law enforcement relied on the warrant in good faith.
[¶ 80] On appeal, Lunde argues, primarily, there should be no good-faith exception under the North Dakota Constitution and, secondarily, if there is a good-faith exception under the North Dakota Constitution, there was no good-faith reliance on the warrant by law enforcement. The State argues there is or should be a good-faith exception under the North Dakota Constitution, and there was clearly good faith in law enforcement’s reliance on this search warrant.
[¶ 31] The majority says it need not decide whether there is a good-faith exception under the North Dakota Constitution, because no reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.
[¶ 32] I believe, on the basis of the evidence presented in the affidavit, there was probable cause; there is a good-faith exception under the North Dakota Constitution; and, if there was not probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, there was substantial indicia of probable cause and good-faith reliance on the warrant by law enforcement.
[¶ 33] I have previously explained the basis for rejecting the claim that there is no good-faith exception under the North Dakota Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Herrick, 1999 ND 1, ¶¶ 32-37, 588 N.W.2d 847 (Sandstrom, J., concurring).
[¶ 34] Here the record reflects that a confidential informant had ongoing drug-related business outside Lunde’s apartment. An additional cooperating individual provided corroboration of the involvement of Lunde, the confidential informant, and Glen Forehand, who had been arrested for drug trafficking. Lunde’s phone number was on Forehand’s cell phone at the time of his arrest, and Forehand sought to alert Lunde following Forehand’s arrest.
[¶ 35] The majority asserts that it is not known whether evidence provided by the confidential informant was “stale,” but we have said that when information presented to a magistrate shows “conduct or activity of a ‘protracted and continuous’ nature, the passage of time is less important to the validity of the probable cause” and that “[d]rug dealing is intrinsically a ‘protracted and continuous’ activity.” State v. Ebel, 2006 ND 212, ¶ 15, 723 N.W.2d 375 (citing State v. Hage, 1997 ND 175, ¶¶ 12-13, 568 N.W.2d 741). The evidence present to the magistrate here was of conduct and activity of a protracted and continuous nature.
[¶ 36] The majority further premises its analysis on the erroneous view of the law that every relevant detail provided by the confidential informant must be corroborated. See State v. Birk, 484 N.W.2d 834, 837 (N.D.1992) (“[W]hen law enforcement officers have verified part of the informant’s information by independent investigation, the corroboration lends credence to the remaining unverified information.”).
[¶ 37] It overreaches the record to suggest law enforcement had previously *640“searched” Lunde’s apartment “apparently” with his consent. The affidavit states, “Marcus [Lunde] allowed officers to check the apartment for ‘CJ’ and Lunde also told officers he had not seen ‘CJ’ since Sunday July 16th.” It seems illogical to think Lunde would have allowed law enforcement to look in his apartment to see whether “CJ” was present if his drugs, drug paraphernalia, or other incriminating evidence was in plain sight.
[¶ 38] Law enforcement acted reasonably and in good faith. I would affirm.
[¶ 39] Dale V. Sandstrom