Summary
This North Dakota Supreme Court decision affirms the district court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into his apartment. The court held that the defendant's affirmative conduct—calling 911 for an overdose emergency, opening his door, and directing officers to look in specific areas—constituted voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the warrantless search and subsequent seizure of drugs and a firearm were deemed lawful under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Gothberg affirmatively consented to law enforcement’s entry into his apartment.
- Whether Gothberg’s consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- Whether Gothberg’s consent extended to officers’ search for the substance the child may have ingested and to the bedroom safe.
- Whether the district court properly denied the motion to suppress and dismiss.
Holdings
- Gothberg’s affirmative conduct, including calling 911, opening his apartment door after officers announced their presence, leaving the door open, describing the emergency, and walking toward the child’s location, objectively demonstrated consent for the officers to follow him into the apartment to assist the child.
- Gothberg voluntarily consented to the officers’ entry and actions within the scope of his consent.
- Gothberg’s statement that officers could “go ahead and look” in the living room authorized the officers to enter and look around that area for the substance the child may have ingested.
- Gothberg consented to officers searching the bedroom safe after identifying the firearm’s location and providing the safe’s combination.
Key quotations
“In cases involving consent to enter a home, this Court has held that “to sustain a finding of consent, the State must show affirmative conduct by the person alleged to have consented that is consistent with the giving of consent, rather than merely showing that the person took no affirmative actions to stop the police.”” (¶ 12)
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court did not err in concluding the officers’ entry into Gothberg’s home and search for items related to the ingestion of drugs by the child were justified under the consent exception to the warrant requirement.” (¶ 20)
Factual background
Gothberg called 911 to report that his two-year-old child had apparently overdosed after consuming fentanyl. When officers arrived, Gothberg opened his apartment door while holding the child, described the emergency, left the door open, and walked toward the bedroom while indicating where the child was. Inside the apartment, he told officers to look in the living room for what the child may have ingested, later disclosed that fentanyl had been on the coffee table, and identified a handgun and provided the combination to a bedroom safe. Officers observed suspected drugs but did not seize or search items until obtaining a warrant.
Procedural history
Gothberg called 911 after his two-year-old child appeared to overdose on fentanyl. Law enforcement entered his apartment after Gothberg opened the door, described the emergency, and walked toward the child’s location. The district court denied Gothberg’s motion to suppress and dismiss, finding that he consented to the entry and subsequent limited searches and alternatively that the emergency exception applied. After a conditional guilty plea and entry of judgment, Gothberg appealed. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.