Legal Opinion
State v. Anderson
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided February 23, 2006No. 20050202, 20050229PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CROTHERS, Justice.
[¶ 1] Jesse Anderson (“Jesse”) and Daniel Anderson (“Daniel”) appeal from a criminal conviction for carrying a concealed weapon or dangerous firearm, entered upon a conditional guilty plea after the district court denied their motions to suppress evidence. We affirm, concluding: (1) law enforcement officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle; (2) the officers’ actions during the vehicle stop were reasonable; (3) a statement Jesse made to law enforcement officers before being given a Miranda warning was not illegally obtained; (4) the search of the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pennsylvania v. MimmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. HensleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gabel v. North Dakota Department of TransportationNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. TorkelsenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- City of Devils Lake v. GroveNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
- City of Dickinson v. HewsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. GueinSupreme Court of Kansas · 2019
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.