State v. Pederson

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Kyle Pederson’s motion to suppress evidence and statements following his arrest in a motel room. The court held that the warrantless entry was unlawful because consent was not voluntary, but statements made at the police station were not subject to suppression under New York v. Harris because officers had probable cause to arrest; the court also held that Pederson did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel.

Holdings

1. Pederson did not voluntarily consent to the officers' entry into the motel room. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including four armed officers pointing weapons, commands to come out with hands raised, and the subsequent order to the ground, the district court's contrary finding was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Although the motel-room entry and arrest were unlawful, the exclusionary rule did not bar the State's use of Pederson's statements made at the police station because officers had probable cause to arrest him before entering the motel room, and the statements were not the product of being in unlawful custody or of the location of the arrest.
3. Pederson did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel. His statement, "I'm getting a lawyer then or something," was ambiguous or equivocal, and his subsequent agreement to continue talking demonstrated that he wished to proceed with the interview.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the officers' warrantless entry into Pederson's motel room and arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because Pederson's purported consent was involuntary.
2. Whether statements made at the police station after the unlawful motel-room entry were inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
3. Whether Pederson unambiguously invoked his Miranda right to counsel during custodial interrogation.

Disposition

affirmed