Court Opinion

ID: 9877650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:14:50.353779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:05.016096
License: Public Domain

VandeWalle, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶28] I respectfully dissent.
[¶29] The majority relies heavily upon two cases from outside our jurisdiction: People v. Davis, 442 Mich. 1, 497 N.W.2d 910 (1993) and Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2014). In Sutterfield, a patient made suicidal comments to her doctor. 751 F.3d at 545. As the majority points out, it took officers approximately nine hours to locate the pa*679tient. Id. at 546-47. When the officers did locate the patient, she refused them entry into her home, but nonetheless, the officers forced their way into the patient’s home. Id. This is not insignificant; law enforcement officers were able to confirm that the patient had not followed through with her threat of suicide because the patient had answered the door. However, here, the deputies were not able to confirm that Hyde did not act ón his suicidal comments; Hyde never came to the door nor did the deputies observe any indication of movement inside the residence throughout their nine minutes of knocking and yelling.
[¶30] In Davis, the Michigan Supreme Court found there was not an emergency situation when law enforcement received an ambiguous report of shots being fired from one of two motel rooms and the individual in the first motel room took several minutes to open the door. 497 N.W.2d at 921-22. The court noted the caller claimed to be the manager of the motel, but gave the wrong name of the motel and was unable to give its address or the cross street. Id. at 922. The court also noted the report of shots being fired did not “suggest that any person was injured.” Id. at 921.
[¶31] We have stated “information from an informant whose identity is easily ascertainable has a higher indicia of reliability than information obtained from a purely anonymous informant,” State v. Karna, 2016 ND 232, ¶ 9, 887 N.W.2d 549 (citing Anderson v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 97, ¶ 15, 696 N.W.2d 918). Here, the report to law enforcement came from Hyde’s brother and he reported Hyde called their mother numerous times the previous night where he made several suicidal comments. This information from Hyde’s brother has a higher indicia of reliability because it was not from a purely anonymous informant; rather, it came from a family member who identified himself to law enforcement. Additionally, as in Sut-terfield, Davis answered the door to law enforcement’s knocking and announcing and forced their way into the motel room. 497 N.W.2d at 922. Although it is true that Davis could have been concealing a person in need of aid, law enforcement was able to observe Davis’s demeanor and had the opportunity to question her about the reported shots. No such'interaction was possible here; no one answered the door to Hyde’s residence. Indeed, had Hyde come to the door, I would have joined in the majority’s opinion.
[¶32] With the facts available to the deputies at the time of their entry into Hyde’s residence—-a family member reporting Hyde was suicidal, Hyde was likely at his residence, and there was no response to the deputies knocking for nine minutes—I believe a reasonable person would conclude the deputies’ entrance into Hyde’s residence was appropriate to ensure Hyde had not followed through with his suicidal comments. At the time the deputies entered Hyde’s residence, they could not have known whether he had carried through with his suicidal comments. Therefore, the deputies had reasoriable grounds to believe that there was .an emergency at hand and there was an immediate need for their assistance to protect Hyde’s life when they entered Hyde’s residence.
[1133] Because I believe the district court correctly determined the deputies reasonably believed Hyde was in immediate need of aid to preserve his life, I would affirm.
[¶34] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Risa Fair McEvers