Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - North Dakota Supreme Court dismisses sobriety check case

North Dakota Supreme Court dismisses sobriety check case

Jun 30, 2006 - 08:16:03 CDT

By JENNYMICHAEL
Bismarck Tribune

The North Dakota Supreme Court says it cannot decide a case about the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints because the state previously asked for the case to be dismissed.

Brian Ehli, of Bismarck, was arrested on Sept. 17, 2005, for driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana. He was later charged for the offenses in South Central District Court.

Ehli had been stopped at a North Dakota Highway Patrol sobriety checkpoint in Morton County on the Expressway Bridge just before the Memorial Highway exit.

Ehli pleaded not guilty to all three charges in district court. He also moved to suppress the evidence obtained when he was stopped at the checkpoint, arguing that the checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment because a motorist approaching the checkpoint had no way to avoid it.

On Jan. 17, Judge Bruce Riskedahl granted Ehli's motion, citing a North Dakota Supreme Court ruling that said it is not constitutional to set up a checkpoint where the driver does not have the option of turning around without committing a traffic violation that would justify a stop.

On Jan. 18, the state moved to dismiss the case, because of the decision to suppress evidence. The case was dismissed on Jan. 20, and the state filed its notice of appeal on Feb. 7.

Because the state had previously asked for the case to be dismissed, the Supreme Court ruled that the case could not be appealed.

"The state's appeal is moot," wrote Supreme Court Justice Mary Maring in the decision.

Maring wrote that the state could have appealed Riskedahl's order granting the suppression of evidence before asking that the case be dismissed.

Attorneys involved in the case couldn't be reached for comment.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@;bismarcktribune.com)

News > Topnews

Printer friendly version North Dakota Supreme Court dismisses sobriety check case

Comments

I agree wrote on Jul 6, 2006 9:03 PM:

" with the fact the checkpoints are illegal. They are suppose to have a reason for pulling people over. I am sure who ever came up with the idea of checkpoints to begin with is a controling type of personality. You cannot possible control everything. Things are going to happen. For the people that are that scared of bombs in people houses going off then you may need to seek some medical assistance from a pychiatrist. There are diseases that cause these problems. Being aware of problems in our society and being scared of problems in our society are two different things. Alot of people are aware of problems. If you are so scared of everything out there that you feel the need to monitor and control everything that people do than you need to seek some help. If you are someone that keeps on pushing for laws to control what people do you may need to seek some medical help also. I am glad to see this ruling not because the person was not guilty but because of the method used to pull them over. I think our whole society is going in a bad direction right now. They did this to the people in Russia with communism. Controled everything they did. "

righty wrote on Jun 30, 2006 5:22 PM:

" Yeah, I'm in favor of these home inspections that would look for illegal explosives. The cops could just seal off four or five blocks at a random time and sweep every home. After all if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have nothing to worry about. . . right? Please start the "home inspections" as soon as possible. My peace of mind in knowing every house in the neigbhorhood isn't a bomb haven outweighs all the homeowners'inconvenience. After all, I am a weak and spineless person and want a world where there is no risk at all in any activity that I want to do, and to accomplish that we need road blocks and mandatory this and mandatory that. "

checkpoint charlie wrote on Jun 30, 2006 4:14 PM:

" They should be stopping everyone and checking them. They should also be checking for illegals, firearms, alcohol, drugs, even presciption drugs and fireworks. And if you don't have the proper paperwork such as registration and insurance then the car should be impounded and the driver arrested. Its not like we have to adhear to the 4th Amendment, just the ones we like. "

law wrote on Jun 30, 2006 3:19 PM:

" This is the unfortunate reality of law; in order for the laws of our land, government, and communities to be withstanding; one must challenge those laws. It is from our mistakes that we become stronger. There's always a beneficiary to a weekness or loophole; but ultimately we become a better society as our laws must always be challenged. I too understand there are concerns for human rights and whether or not they are being compromised; yet in this case I have to side with those in favor of check points as I see them as ultimately a means to my safety; just as I do for paying property taxes that finance those very same officers who will come to my aid when in need; or fireman when they save lives. These are the people who put their lives on the line every day the report for duty. Hats of to all men and women in uniform. "

Nodak wrote on Jun 30, 2006 1:43 PM:

" Ok... So, now today a study has come out that says talking on a phone is as deadly if not more deadly than driving drunk. So..... I assume all of you who are for sobriety checks are now for and will push for law enforcement searches of vehicles for cell phones. Well it may not be against the law here right now, the move in the country is in that direction. Once we lose a constitutional right that we believe we have it doesn't take long for the "cause" people to get our government to expand it into the next area and the next. Law enforcement has more than enough tools to remove drunk drivers from the roads. They don't need to start harrassing innocent civilians in their quest to find a bad apple. "

Tim in Tacoma wrote on Jun 30, 2006 12:05 PM:

" I for one, should not have to feel guilty for not having done anything wrong. Pull me over for speeding or whatever,then we can talk. Also I am not a truck driver and I am not boarding a plane, I am just going to the store fo a gallon of milk. "

Reader wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:58 AM:

" Whether it is right or wrong to drive drunk is not the issue that was being challenged, the idea of stopping all motorists is the issue. I thought that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The checkpoints assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent and sent on your way "

Donald W. wrote on Jun 30, 2006 11:05 AM:

" To those who are against check points that feel it is wrong to pull people over if they are doing nothing wrong. I could argue that a check point is the same as law enforcement pulling over truckers to check their weight and other info. To you, this is illegal. Couldn't one argue that when you go into puchase liquor or enter a bar; that stopping you and checking your i.d. is also against the law? After all, you aren't doing anything wrong. You are of legal age. Same as the point made by "Human Threat", that you would also by your argument, consider the airport security check points illegal. Simply put, I am willing to give my right to not be pulled over for a check point if it helps keep somebody from killing somebody else. "

Human Threat wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:40 AM:

" I struggle with the idea of "unconstitutional" when the behavior is a threat to another human being. If you are in your home, your behavior does not pose an immediate threat to others, of course unless you are at risk of causing an explosion, etc. Airport security has the same idea as check points...protection of others! Drunk driving is as deadly as a firearm, knife, etc. "

Camille wrote on Jun 30, 2006 10:23 AM:

" When I was a little girl, my Mom taught me Policemen were not to be feared, but respected and turned to in times of trouble. She said they were there to protect us. She was right! I am definitely in the camp of "if you're not doing anything wrong,what's the problem". Very few people, in my opinion, would argue stoned people (regardless of drug of choice) are safe drivers. If all the checkpoints ever manned kept just one person from dying, it will have been worth it. My hat is off to the men in bluand a big thank you to all of them for all they do for us. "

Against Check Points wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:50 AM:

" I am against drunk driving and the police should use all means at their disposal to curb it. Check points, however, (in my opinion) go over the line. The argument that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" doesn't play with me. Stopping motorists for no reason, other than a "fishing expedition" for contraband/illegal behavior seems something out of 1940s Germany. The next logical step is officers showing up at our doorsteps for "routine health and welfare" inspections of our homes. If you think someone is driving drunk, follow them, observe them breaking some sort of traffic law, and pull them over. You now have reasonable cause to investigate further. Stopping motorists for no infraction, once again in my opinion, is unconstitutional. "

Responsibility! wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:35 AM:

" There is a reason behind sobriety check points and if you are not engaging in illegal activity, one would suspect you would believe these stops to be a protection for you as an individual. What about the rights of the hundreds of people, each year, that are the victim of someone else's drunk driving? Driving under the influence is a choice and everyone is aware of the legal consequences. Today's citizens spend too much time avoiding responsibility for their own actions and placing blame elsewhere when the concept is rather simple: If you did the behavior, you are liable of the consequence. I feel pretty comfortable in believing this wasn't the first time he committed such acts...it seldom ever is. "

yep wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:32 AM:

" if you feel like drinking and driving leave the weed at home. "

wondering wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:17 AM:

" Bruce Riskedahl????? Is he a new Judge?? "

Bill wrote on Jun 30, 2006 9:05 AM:

" This is just what we need. A bunch of drunk, high people driving on our streets. I'm glad there are loopholes to allow this behavior "

A believer in our rights wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:54 AM:

" That isn't a loophole, that is to prevent police abuses of power. I personally, as a strong believer in our personal rights, have done LEGAL U turns before checkpoints and been immediately pulled over for it. After finally convincing them that I wasn't stoned/drunk/high/terrorist, I was let go, but in the police mind if you avoid a checkpoint you are 100% guilty. At this point it isn't quite legal for the police to stop us and ask for our 'papers' for no apparent reason, and that is exactly what a checkpoint with no way to avoid amounts to. "

Typical wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:45 AM:

" Typical in today's society: I'm not gonna take any blame for my actions and will do eveything possible to get off on a technicality. After all, it's somebody elses fault, not mine. Way to go Ell!! "

Barry wrote on Jun 30, 2006 7:20 AM:

" Congratualtions, Brian! Good to hear that citizens still stand up and fight for rights. Despite Bush's assertions of imperial power, we do not yet live in a police state. "

bust'em wrote on Jun 30, 2006 6:02 AM:

" Anyone dumb enough to drink and drive AND have drugs with paraphernalia, should not be lucky enough to get out of trouble due to a loophole. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.