Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2023 ND 176

State v. Powell

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 2023

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 2023-09-28

A criminal judgment entered following denial of a motion to suppress evidence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Decided 2023-09-28

                                                                              FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                       SEPTEMBER 28, 2023
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA




                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                
2023 ND 176

State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Daniel Wayne Powell,                                Defendant and Appellant



                                No. 20230107

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Reid A. Brady, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Derek K. Steiner, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and
appellee; submitted on brief.

Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                               State v. Powell
                                No. 20230107

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Daniel Wayne Powell appeals from an amended criminal judgment
entered on a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal a district
court order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Powell argues the district
court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because the application
for search warrant contained false or misleading information. He also argues
the application lacked corroborating evidence of the confidential source, and
lacked sufficient detail on the canine’s alert. The district court found the
application for search warrant did not contain statements that were knowingly
or intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. We
summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                                       1

/2023/nd/176 · .json · Public domain