In the Interest of D.O.

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court order transferring D.O.’s case to district court and denying his motion to suppress evidence. The Court held that the search warrant affidavit did not contain intentionally or recklessly false or misleading information, probable cause supported the warrant, and the admission of hearsay at the transfer hearing did not violate D.O.’s statutory confrontation rights. The Court also concluded that sufficient grounds supported transferring the case based on D.O.’s alleged offenses, treatment history, and the community’s interests.

Holdings

1. D.O. failed to prove that the officer intentionally or recklessly included false or misleading information in the affidavit or omitted information in a manner that undermined probable cause; therefore, suppression was not required.
2. The totality of the circumstances established probable cause to issue the search warrants.
3. The juvenile court did not violate D.O.'s statutory right to cross-examine adverse witnesses or his confrontation rights by admitting out-of-court statements during the transfer hearing.
4. The State's failure to list witness names and addresses in its response did not warrant reversal because the witnesses had been disclosed during discovery and D.O. did not object when they were called.
5. The juvenile court properly transferred D.O.'s case because the State established reasonable grounds, comparable to probable cause, that D.O. committed the alleged acts, was not amenable to juvenile treatment or rehabilitation, and should be placed under legal restraint or discipline in the community's interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether law enforcement intentionally or recklessly included false or misleading information, or omitted material information, in the search-warrant affidavit so as to require a Franks remedy.
2. Whether the search-warrant affidavits established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.
3. Whether admission of out-of-court statements at the juvenile transfer hearing violated D.O.'s statutory right to cross-examine adverse witnesses or his confrontation rights.
4. Whether the State provided adequate notice of the witnesses called at the transfer hearing.
5. Whether reasonable grounds and probable cause supported transferring D.O.'s case from juvenile court to district court.

Disposition

affirmed