Court Opinion

ID: 9861363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:55:39.16332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:15.372823
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
I would affirm the trial court’s findings that the checkpoint was pretextual and unconstitutional. Justice Levine’s dissent is persuasive that the Fourth Amendment still has some application to vehicles.
However, I would also affirm the trial court’s finding that Everson’s uncoerced consent purged the illegality of the original stop. “Evidence of a crime, sufficiently distinguishable from and independent of the taint of official misconduct, is not suppressed.” State v. Ritter, 472 N.W.2d 444 (N.D.1991). See also State v. Thordarson, 440 N.W.2d 510 (N.D.1989). Therefore, I concur in affirming the judgments of conviction.