Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Bartelson

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 2005No. 20040266Published

1DissentMaring, Justice

[¶22] I respectfully dissent. Because I believe the second stop of Bartelson violated the Fourth Amendment, I would reverse the trial court’s denial of Bartelson’s motion to suppress.

[¶ 23] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose,…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Florida v. JimenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Devenpeck v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

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

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

Powered by the Exa API