Legal Opinion

State v. Pederson

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 2011No. Nos. 20100364, 20100365PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Kyle Pederson appealed from a district court order denying his motion to suppress evidence, which we treat as an appeal from the subsequently entered criminal judgment. Pederson argues the district court erred in denying his motion because any evidence obtained after law officers unlawfully entered his motel room and arrested him must be suppressed under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and any statements he made during the interrogation must be suppressed because he invoked his right to counsel. We affirm.

I

[¶ 2] Pederson became a suspect in multiple…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Stoner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. WhitmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Chisholm v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. OstbyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Gaede v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. WhitmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API