State v. Lindquist
Opinion
Filed 07/22/2020 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2020 ND 163
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v.
Ryan Michael Lindquist, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20200022
Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Ladd R. Erickson, State’s Attorney, Washburn, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Russell J. Myhre, Enderlin, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
State v. Lindquist
No. 20200022
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Ryan Lindquist appeals from a criminal judgment after entering conditional pleas following an order denying his motion to suppress. On appeal, Lindquist states his “main contention upon [his] motion to suppress was that because Lindquist was immediately detained at the scene . . . [his] detention was violative of Lindquist’s Fourth Amendment rights.” While Lindquist makes a conclusory statement that his detention was unlawful, he failed to adequately develop an argument in support of this contention. The district court’s findings have adequate support in the record. “Our Court will not consider an argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed.” State v. Bachmeier, 2007 ND 42, ¶ 10, 729 N.W.2d 141. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(7).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Jerod E. Tufte Gerald W. VandeWalle
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2020 ND 163 (State v. Lindquist) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.