Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment against John Edward Casson, Jr., holding that he was seized when law enforcement stated that a K-9 unit would conduct a sniff of his vehicle. The Court concluded the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity and that the scope of the intrusion was reasonable. Justice Crothers specially concurred, disagreeing that a seizure occurred.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Casson was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when officers approached him, requested identification, sought consent to search his vehicle, and stated that a K-9 unit would be called after he refused consent.
- Whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion that Casson was engaged in or about to engage in criminal activity.
- Whether the scope of the intrusion was reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the seizure.
- Whether the district court properly denied Casson's motion to suppress.
Holdings
- Casson was seized because, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in his position would have believed he was not free to leave.
- The seizure was justified by sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion that Casson was engaged in or about to engage in criminal activity.
- The scope of the intrusion was reasonably related to the circumstances supporting the seizure.
Key quotations
“A person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that they were not free to leave.” (¶ 8)
“We have applied the “Terry” test to determine whether a seizure is justified, noting if there is reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, the seizure is justified.” (¶ 14)
“The determination of whether an officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime is limited to the information known to the officer at the time of the stop.” (¶ 15)
Factual background
While off duty, a narcotics task force officer observed Casson traveling to a park known for drug use and sales. Previous reports associated Casson with drug activity at the park, and law enforcement cameras had repeatedly captured his truck near the park. Officers approached Casson in a secluded area, explained they were investigating increased drug activity, requested identification, and asked for consent to search his vehicle. After Casson refused, an officer stated that a K-9 unit would be called to conduct a vehicle sniff, after which Casson immediately indicated that the K-9 would not be necessary.
Procedural history
The Mercer County District Court denied Casson's motion to suppress evidence. Casson entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his suppression issue for appeal. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment.