State v. Petersen
Citations
- 994 N.W.2d 410
- 2023 ND 155
Syllabus
Law enforcement exceeds its community caretaking function when it opens the door of a sleeping occupant's parked semi-truck and steps onto the running boards in an attempt to gather information without first attempting to get a response from outside of the vehicle. Under prong two of the inevitable discovery doctrine, the State must prove that the evidence would have been found without the unlawful activity and must show how the discovery of the evidence would have occurred.
Judges: Tufte, Jerod E.
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Florida v. JardinesSupreme Court· 2013-03-26· cited 1,615×
- United States v. JonesSupreme Court· 2012-01-23· cited 1,330×
- New York v. ClassSupreme Court· 1986-02-25· cited 728×
- State v. HollyNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2013-06-19· cited 101×
- Lapp v. North Dakota Department of TransportationNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2001-07-25· cited 32×
- Rist v. North Dakota Department of TransportationNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2003-07-16· cited 30×
- State v. WashingtonNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2007-08-22· cited 14×
- State v. StewartNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2014-07-31· cited 9×
- Bridgeford v. SorelNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2019-06-27· cited 6×
- State v. KrallNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2023-01-20· cited 5×
- State v. BogerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2021-08-19· cited 4×
- State v. AsbachNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2016-07-20· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.