Court Opinion

ID: 9513799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:40:45.110326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:02.840394
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 31] Although I agree with much of what the Chief Justice has written in his separate opinion, I dissent because the majority reverses on a basis not raised to the district court by the defendant.
[¶ 32] In the district court, the defendant’s issue was what could be done with evidence, not whether he consented to the search.
[¶ 33] At the suppression hearing, the defendant’s lawyer argued that “the sign just says they may be subject to search. Again does not indicate specifically that this evidence could be used in a court of law against them.” And, “So it’s again a matter of what can we do with this evidence once it’s seized. Can we use it in a court of law.”
[IT 34] After the State’s argument, the court asked whether there was any response. The defense again argued, “Just, Your Honor, this is the type of thing that could be cured. I mean, I think if. you did a properly noticed sign which spelled out clearly the consequences that the subject to search that it is subject to arrest or seizure for items prohibited by law.”
[¶ 35] The defendant’s argument in the district court was not that he did not consent to the search, but that he did not consent to the evidence being used in a court of law.
[¶ 36] The defendant’s failure to dispute in the district court his consent to search precludes him from raising it here. State v. Steffes, 500 N.W.2d 608, 615 (N.D.1993); Gonzalez v. Tounjian, 2003 ND 121, ¶ 31, 665 N.W.2d 705.
[¶ 37] I would affirm the district court judgment.
[¶ 38] Dale V. Sandstrom