Sex dating in hamberg north dakota
Sex dating in hamberg north dakota
Shaw subsequently met with Poitra and collected a DNA sample.[¶7] Shaw also took more photographs of Poitra to use in a photographic lineup because he noticed Poitra has a distinct scar on his forehead, which was consistent with Doe's description. "'We defer to a magistrate's determination of probable cause so long as a substantial basis for the conclusion exists, and we resolve doubtful or marginal cases in favor of the magistrate's determination.'" , 2006 ND 39, ¶ 6, 710 N. When reviewing the sufficiency of the information before the magistrate, we consider the totality of the circumstances and determine whether "there is a fair probability . But surely it is to be 'truthful' in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.", 438 U. at 165.[¶17] A false statement is one that "'misleads a neutral and detached magistrate into believing the stated facts exist, and those facts in turn affect the magistrate's evaluation of whether or not there is probable cause.'" , at ¶ 21. A finding is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence supports the finding or if this Court is convinced, based on the entire record, that a mistake has been made.
Shaw testified he asked Poitra his date of birth before executing the warrant and Poitra gave him a date that would have made Poitra eighteen years old.
Poitra was at the residence and was taken into custody on a charge of minor in consumption of alcohol.
Shaw also talked to another individual who was with Doe on the night of the incident and she said a male named Josh was wearing a white hat with a foot emblem.[¶4] On June 15, 2008, law enforcement officers were investigating an unrelated matter at the residence where the incident with Doe occurred. The change clarified when a juvenile has a right to counsel and made the statute consistent with constitutional law, limiting the right. W.2d 478 (1995 amendment limited a juvenile's right to counsel under N.
Minor in consumption is not one of the crimes listed under N. The court found law enforcement did not know Poitra's correct date of birth or that he was a juvenile until June 18, 2008, which was after Poitra was photographed and the photographic lineup was conducted.
Here, Poitra was photographed while in custody for a charge of minor in consumption. The court found Poitra repeatedly failed to give law enforcement officers his correct date of birth and failed to correct the officers when he was asked if they had the correct date. IV[¶33] Poitra argues the district court erred in excluding evidence of Doe's sexual history under N.
Shaw testified he did not know Poitra was a juvenile until June 18, 2008, after Poitra appeared in court.
Shaw testified he contacted the Social Security Administration after learning Poitra was a juvenile to confirm that he was under eighteen. Law enforcement officers believed Poitra was eighteen, based on information from law enforcement databases and Poitra's statements.[¶5] Later that day, Detectives Shaw and Paul Lies interviewed Poitra. After a hearing, the court granted Poitra's motion to suppress the statements made after he was taken into custody. Poitra was photographed when he was taken into custody. After a hearing, the juvenile court transferred the aggravated assault and gross sexual imposition charges to adult district court.[¶10] Poitra moved to suppress all statements made to law enforcement because they were the result of custodial interrogation and a parent or attorney was not present, to suppress the photographic identification because the photographs were taken without a parent or attorney present and law enforcement knew or should have known he was a juvenile, and to suppress all DNA evidence because the affidavit for the warrant was based on false or misleading information. The Social Security Administration confirmed Poitra was a juvenile.[¶9] On June 19, 2008, a petition was filed in juvenile court charging Poitra with minor in consumption of alcohol in violation of N. Evidence establishes the affiant, Shaw, did not know how old Poitra was and Poitra refused to give the officers his correct date of birth. § 27-20-26 stated that a juvenile was entitled to counsel "at all stages of any proceedings," which this Court said included "circumstances in which an officer has focused his investigation on a particular suspect and is intent on gathering evidence, not merely investigating a complaint." , 431 N. Poitra testified an officer told him they found three different dates of birth. He testified the officers asked him if he was over eighteen and he said he was. 20090339Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Georgia Dawson, Judge. Poitra told the detectives that he wanted to speak with his mother before he decided whether to give a DNA sample.[¶6] On June 16, 2008, Shaw applied for a search warrant to obtain a DNA sample from Poitra. § 12.1-17-02 and gross sexual imposition in violation of N. Poitra was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison with five years suspended. if its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.'" , 2007 ND 4, ¶ 11, 725 N. A[¶14] Poitra argues law enforcement intentionally or recklessly included a false statement in the affidavit for the search warrant because the affidavit did not state he was a juvenile and did not include all of the possible dates of birth law enforcement had for him. § 27-20-26 was amended in 1995 to its current language granting juveniles a right to counsel at "custodial, post-petition, and informal adjustment stages of proceedings." , 54th N.