MESCHKE, Justice.
The State appeals from dismissal of a misdemeanor charge of preventing arrest against Leonard J. Ritter. The trial court ruled that Ritter had been wrongfully de[446]*446tained, thus excusing his forceful resistance to the arrest. We reverse and remand for trial, including the statutory defense that the arresting officer was not acting lawfully.
Three Fargo police officers were dispatched to a local tavern to look into a report of a fight. Before entering the tavern, officer Lies overheard a man say to a woman, “But the son of a bitch hit you.” Lies asked the woman if she had been involved in the fight. When she replied that she had been and that she was leaving, Lies asked her to wait.
Inside the tavern, the bartender told the officers that the fight participants had left. The officers returned outside where they heard the same woman say to Ritter, “You’re a fucking asshole.” Officer Olson stopped to interview the woman. Separately, officer Lies began questioning Ritter, who denied knowledge of the fight and refused to identify himself unless arrested.
While talking to the woman, Olson sig-nalled to officers Lies and Sanderson to detain and identify Ritter as a possible suspect. After Olson’s signal, Lies tried to question Ritter again, but Ritter again refused to identify himself. Then, officers Lies and Sanderson each took one of Rit-ter’s arms and physically moved him, over his loud protests, some distance to Lies's squad car. There, the two officers cornered Ritter in an area between the squad car and a building, and persisted in questioning him. Ritter continued to refuse to respond and repeatedly asked to leave.
Ritter became profane and belligerent, verbally threatening the officers and clenching his fists. Fearing escalation, the officers sought assistance from Olson who left off interviewing the woman. While the three officers surrounded Ritter closely, Olson too requested Ritter’s identification and Ritter still refused. At this point, Ritter pushed Olson. The officers then told Ritter that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. When the officers sought to handcuff him, Ritter fought with the officers, was subdued by force, and was taken to a hospital. Later, Ritter was charged with violating NDCC 12.1-17-01 for assault of the woman1 and with violating NDCC 12.1-08-02 for preventing his arrest.2
Ritter moved to dismiss the preventing arrest charge. Based upon the deposition testimony of officer Lies as the agreed record for the motion, the trial court ruled that Ritter was “detained wrongfully for the purposes of ... identification,” and that the investigative stop of Ritter exceeded a reasonable scope. The trial court expressed concern that the combined trial of the charge of preventing arrest with the distinct charge of assault “is only going to prejudice” Ritter. Just before the jury tri[447]*447al on the assault charge began,3 the trial court orally dismissed the preventing arrest charge and, later that day, entered a written order of dismissal that was not served on the prosecution. The State appealed from the oral dismissal.
On appeal, the State submits that it can appeal the trial court’s ruling, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the charge of preventing arrest.
I. APPEALABILITY
Ritter does not oppose the State’s claim of appealability. Nevertheless, we address appealability because our jurisdiction is implicated.
The State’s right to appeal in criminal cases is governed by NDCC 29-28-07, which authorizes an appeal from an order quashing an information.4 A majority of this court holds that the State may appeal from the “dismissal of an ... order ... that has the same effect as an order quashing an information.” State v. Hogie, 424 N.W.2d 630, 631 (N.D.1988). Compare State v. Flohr, 259 N.W.2d 293 (N.D.1977). Review of this dismissal is within our jurisdiction.
The State appealed from an oral ruling. “An oral ruling on a motion is not an appealable order.” State v. Klocke, 419 N.W.2d 918, 919 (N.D.1988). Soon after the oral ruling, the trial court entered a consistent, written order of dismissal. State v. Hogie, 424 N.W.2d at 631 (“[Because a signed written order and a judgment consistent with the oral ruling were subsequently entered, we will treat the State’s appeal as an appeal from the judgment. See State v. Klocke, [419 N.W.2d at 919]”). Since this dismissal is final, we are authorized to review it.
II. UNLAWFUL DETENTION
The State argues that the officers had enough suspicion of criminal activity to stop Ritter to investigate the report of a fight, so that his temporary detention was constitutional, and that the duration of that temporary detention was reasonably related to the investigation. Ritter disputes both propositions.
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures “applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). “Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves ‘seizures’ of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also California v. Hodari D., — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). These principles guide our analysis.
Because any criminal activity that the officers suspected did not occur in their presence, they could not arrest Ritter for misdemeanor assault without a warrant. See footnote 1. An officer is authorized to arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence only with a warrant. See NDCC 29-06-15.5 Although the fight re[448]*448port and the remarks overheard certainly supplied a reasonable suspicion for the officers to question Ritter, they did not supply probable cause to arrest or detain him. See State v. Moe, 151 N.W.2d 310 (N.D.1967) (Officers had probable cause to believe that offense of public intoxication was committed in their presence, making accused’s arrest legal, and furnishing sufficient evidence for his jury conviction of resisting arrest). The trial court’s ruling accepts that Ritter was an appropriate suspect, but the trial court held that the scope of the investigation was unreasonable. We agree that the officers had reason to stop Ritter for investigation, and that an officer’s questioning, by itself, is not a Fourth Amendment violation.
The trial court found, however, that “the time was ... longer than necessary to effectuate the policeman’s lawful purposes in this case.” The trial court determined that Ritter “was detained by these officers for apparently some substantial period of time. The only purpose for which was to seek his identification which he refused to give and he refused to talk to them any further, which under the circumstances he had the right to do.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MESCHKE, Justice.
The State appeals from dismissal of a misdemeanor charge of preventing arrest against Leonard J. Ritter. The trial court ruled that Ritter had been wrongfully de[446]*446tained, thus excusing his forceful resistance to the arrest. We reverse and remand for trial, including the statutory defense that the arresting officer was not acting lawfully.
Three Fargo police officers were dispatched to a local tavern to look into a report of a fight. Before entering the tavern, officer Lies overheard a man say to a woman, “But the son of a bitch hit you.” Lies asked the woman if she had been involved in the fight. When she replied that she had been and that she was leaving, Lies asked her to wait.
Inside the tavern, the bartender told the officers that the fight participants had left. The officers returned outside where they heard the same woman say to Ritter, “You’re a fucking asshole.” Officer Olson stopped to interview the woman. Separately, officer Lies began questioning Ritter, who denied knowledge of the fight and refused to identify himself unless arrested.
While talking to the woman, Olson sig-nalled to officers Lies and Sanderson to detain and identify Ritter as a possible suspect. After Olson’s signal, Lies tried to question Ritter again, but Ritter again refused to identify himself. Then, officers Lies and Sanderson each took one of Rit-ter’s arms and physically moved him, over his loud protests, some distance to Lies's squad car. There, the two officers cornered Ritter in an area between the squad car and a building, and persisted in questioning him. Ritter continued to refuse to respond and repeatedly asked to leave.
Ritter became profane and belligerent, verbally threatening the officers and clenching his fists. Fearing escalation, the officers sought assistance from Olson who left off interviewing the woman. While the three officers surrounded Ritter closely, Olson too requested Ritter’s identification and Ritter still refused. At this point, Ritter pushed Olson. The officers then told Ritter that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct. When the officers sought to handcuff him, Ritter fought with the officers, was subdued by force, and was taken to a hospital. Later, Ritter was charged with violating NDCC 12.1-17-01 for assault of the woman1 and with violating NDCC 12.1-08-02 for preventing his arrest.2
Ritter moved to dismiss the preventing arrest charge. Based upon the deposition testimony of officer Lies as the agreed record for the motion, the trial court ruled that Ritter was “detained wrongfully for the purposes of ... identification,” and that the investigative stop of Ritter exceeded a reasonable scope. The trial court expressed concern that the combined trial of the charge of preventing arrest with the distinct charge of assault “is only going to prejudice” Ritter. Just before the jury tri[447]*447al on the assault charge began,3 the trial court orally dismissed the preventing arrest charge and, later that day, entered a written order of dismissal that was not served on the prosecution. The State appealed from the oral dismissal.
On appeal, the State submits that it can appeal the trial court’s ruling, and that the trial court erred in dismissing the charge of preventing arrest.
I. APPEALABILITY
Ritter does not oppose the State’s claim of appealability. Nevertheless, we address appealability because our jurisdiction is implicated.
The State’s right to appeal in criminal cases is governed by NDCC 29-28-07, which authorizes an appeal from an order quashing an information.4 A majority of this court holds that the State may appeal from the “dismissal of an ... order ... that has the same effect as an order quashing an information.” State v. Hogie, 424 N.W.2d 630, 631 (N.D.1988). Compare State v. Flohr, 259 N.W.2d 293 (N.D.1977). Review of this dismissal is within our jurisdiction.
The State appealed from an oral ruling. “An oral ruling on a motion is not an appealable order.” State v. Klocke, 419 N.W.2d 918, 919 (N.D.1988). Soon after the oral ruling, the trial court entered a consistent, written order of dismissal. State v. Hogie, 424 N.W.2d at 631 (“[Because a signed written order and a judgment consistent with the oral ruling were subsequently entered, we will treat the State’s appeal as an appeal from the judgment. See State v. Klocke, [419 N.W.2d at 919]”). Since this dismissal is final, we are authorized to review it.
II. UNLAWFUL DETENTION
The State argues that the officers had enough suspicion of criminal activity to stop Ritter to investigate the report of a fight, so that his temporary detention was constitutional, and that the duration of that temporary detention was reasonably related to the investigation. Ritter disputes both propositions.
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures “applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). “Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves ‘seizures’ of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also California v. Hodari D., — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). These principles guide our analysis.
Because any criminal activity that the officers suspected did not occur in their presence, they could not arrest Ritter for misdemeanor assault without a warrant. See footnote 1. An officer is authorized to arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence only with a warrant. See NDCC 29-06-15.5 Although the fight re[448]*448port and the remarks overheard certainly supplied a reasonable suspicion for the officers to question Ritter, they did not supply probable cause to arrest or detain him. See State v. Moe, 151 N.W.2d 310 (N.D.1967) (Officers had probable cause to believe that offense of public intoxication was committed in their presence, making accused’s arrest legal, and furnishing sufficient evidence for his jury conviction of resisting arrest). The trial court’s ruling accepts that Ritter was an appropriate suspect, but the trial court held that the scope of the investigation was unreasonable. We agree that the officers had reason to stop Ritter for investigation, and that an officer’s questioning, by itself, is not a Fourth Amendment violation.
The trial court found, however, that “the time was ... longer than necessary to effectuate the policeman’s lawful purposes in this case.” The trial court determined that Ritter “was detained by these officers for apparently some substantial period of time. The only purpose for which was to seek his identification which he refused to give and he refused to talk to them any further, which under the circumstances he had the right to do.”
The State contests the latter ruling, arguing “that identifying oneself is essentially a neutral act that does not, by itself, implicate a person in criminal activity and that the protection of the Fifth Amendment cannot be invoked as a reason to refuse to answer.” We do not agree that officers can detain someone for persistent investigative questioning until identification is compelled.
The State argues, in effect, that Rit-ter’s obstinacy in refusing to identify himself, not the officers’ arbitrariness, prolonged his detention. The State relies on California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 1535, 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971). The Byers plurality held that a California statute requiring automobile drivers to stop and identify themselves after an accident did not infringe the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compelled self-incrimination, saying “[disclosure of name and address is an essentially neutral act.” 91 S.Ct. at 1540. However, Byers is based on a regulatory scheme, not suspected criminal activity.
There is considerable difference between requiring a person to disclose information as the subject of a noncriminal regulation, and requiring a person to disclose information as a suspect in a criminal investigation. See Baltimore City Dept, of Social Services v. Bouknight, 493 U.S. 549, 110 S.Ct. 900, 107 L.Ed.2d 992 (1990), distinguishing between the civil regulatory powers and the criminal investigatory powers of the state. Byers does not help the State because there is no regulatory statute here. Moreover, in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979), policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity after he refused to identify himself. The United States Supreme Court held that absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity was an unreasonable seizure, notwithstanding a state statute that made it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer “who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information.” Id. at 2639. Under the Bill of Rights, officers cannot extend an investigative stop solely to coerce identification.
Officers may ask a person to cooperate and inquire about identity during an investigation, but officers have no right to convert an investigative stop into custodial interrogation to badger a suspect into an[449]*449swering. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969).
The State relies on various statements in our cases which approve general questioning of citizens in the course of investigating a crime_ But these statements merely reiterated the settled principle that while the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions concerning unsolved crimes they have no right to compel them to answer.
Id. at 1397 n. 6. A concurring opinion in the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on investigative stops also recognizes this “settled principle”: “Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1886, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (White, Justice, concurring). In City of Bismarck v. Schoppert, 469 N.W.2d 808, 813 (N.D.1991), we recently confirmed that one stopped by police for investigation “was under no compulsion to identify himself.”6 See also United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1575, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) (“Obviously, if an investigative stop continues indefinitely, at some point it can no longer be justified as an investigative stop”). While these officers properly stopped Ritter to ascertain his identity, they had no authority to badger and coerce him into compliance.
The State argues that the “real issue is whether Ritter was legally detained until he became disorderly in the officers’ presence.” However, the trial court found that Ritter “was escorted from at least one site to another site near a squad car, was detained by three officers, and ... he was being detained after he asked to be either arrested or be free to leave.” The trial court declared “that conduct ... is not going to be allowed by the Court.” Thus, the trial court concluded that Ritter was seized and in custody, “detained wrongfully,” before his forceful reaction in shoving officer Olson.
Our standard of review on appeal, recognizing the importance of the trial court’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, defers to the factual determinations by the trial court unless those determinations are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Placek, 386 N.W.2d 36 (N.D.1986). We often emphasize the difference between involuntary custodial interrogation and mere noncoer-cive investigation. State v. Fasching, 453 N.W.2d 761, 764 (N.D.1990). “Custodial interrogation can take place in the field as well as at the police station.” Id. See also State v. Connery, 441 N.W.2d 651, 653-55 (N.D.1989), where we distinguish between statements made during “custodial interrogation” at gunpoint during an investigatory stop and another statement made by the accused after he had been told that he was free to leave. Investigative questioning has been distinguished from custodial interrogation in a number of other cases. See State v. Pitman, 427 N.W.2d 337 (N.D.1988); State v. Mertz, 362 N.W.2d 410 (N.D.1985); and Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). The United States Supreme Court cautions “that lower courts must be vigilant that police do not ‘delay formally arresting detained [persons], and ... subject them to sustained and intimidating interrogation at the scene of their initial detention.’ ” Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 109 S.Ct. 205, 207 n. 1, 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988) (quoting from Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). We agree with the trial court that the officer’s physical control and sustained questioning of Ritter became custodial interrogation that wrongfully detained him.
[450]*450Yet, we do not agree that Ritter was thereby automatically excused, as a matter of law, for his forceful conduct that followed.
III. REMEDY
In effect, the trial court suppressed all evidence following Ritter’s unconstitutional detention and, as a result, dismissed the charge of preventing arrest against him. Thus, the trial court judicially excused Ritter’s forceful resistance. While we agree with the determination that Rit-ter’s detention was unlawful, that determination does not complete our analysis. The question is whether, as a matter of law, official misconduct excuses forceful resistance? We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule of law.
The long-standing remedy for official violations of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment guarantee, has been the exclusionary rule. For over a century, the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures has been enforced by prohibiting use of evidence tainted by unlawful official conduct. State v. Thordarson, 440 N.W.2d 510, 512 (N.D.1989). But the same century of experience has produced the doctrine of “independent source” as an exception to the exclusionary rule. Id. Evidence of a crime, sufficiently distinguishable from and independent of the taint of official misconduct, is not suppressed. An independent crime is not shielded by the rule of exclusion.
This court has repeatedly rejected suppression of evidence as a remedy for official misconduct when the criminal charge arose from forceful resistance to official action. State v. Indvik, 382 N.W.2d 623 (N.D.1986).
Indvik’s independent and intervening actions of engaging the officer in a high-speed chase, running from the police officers into the woods, drawing a firearm on the police officers — and actually firing it — break the chain of causation and dissipate the taint of the prior illegality, i.e., the invalid stop. [Citation omitted]. Ind-vik’s independent and intervening actions subsequent to the officers’ attempt to stop Indvik certainly created probable cause for his arrest on the charge of terrorizing.
Id. at 627-28. In Indvik, for the same reason, we also refused to suppress evidence of a firearm found on Indvik after his arrest; Indvik’s independent and intervening terrorizing conduct dispelled the taint of the illegal stop. We affirmed Indi-vik’s jury convictions of reckless endangerment and terrorizing.
Similarly, in State v. Saavedra, 396 N.W.2d 304 (N.D.1986), we ruled that evidence of the disorderly conduct that brought about Saavedra's arrest need not be suppressed when his conduct followed a search of his van and his detention in the patrol car, both concededly illegal. We reasoned that the purpose of the exclusionary rule to deter official misconduct did not extend to evidence of an independent crime even though it was precipitated by an unlawful search and seizure by officers. Id. at 305. We affirmed Saavedra’s jury conviction of disorderly conduct.
Likewise, in State v. Kunkel, 406 N.W.2d 681 (N.D.1987), we ruled that police officers’ actions in entering Kunkel’s room to remove him from the home that he lived in, without a warrant and thus arguably in violation of his constitutional rights, did not call for suppression of his attack on the officers. We explained:
Regardless of Kunkel’s belief that the police were wrongfully in his room, his attack was not the proper way to challenge their conduct. In our system law and order may sometimes interfere with an individual’s rights. We do not intend to legitimize police misconduct, but only to emphasize that a procedure is available to rectify any injustice done by such misconduct.... In essence, the proper forum for the resolution of the propriety of the officers’ action was in a courtroom by a judge, not via an attack....
Id. at 682 n. 3. We affirmed Kunkel’s jury conviction of assault of a police officer. Generally, judicial approval of forceful reaction to official action, even when the [451]*451official action is unconstitutional, is not an appropriate remedy.
Our view in Indvik, Saavedra, and Kunkel represents some shift from prior law,7 but corresponds to a principle incorporated in the North Dakota criminal code since 1973.8 This enactment modified self-defense as a justification for improper official action.
A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest, execution of process, or other performance of duty by a public servant under color of law, but excessive force may be resisted.
NDCC 12.1-05-03(1). Forceful resistance to an arrest “under color of law” is no longer legally justified unless “excessive force” is used by the officer.
This modification derives verbatim from the proposed Federal Criminal Code, which read, in part:
§ 603. Self-Defense.
A person is justified in using force upon another person in order to defend himself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault or detention by such other person, except that:
(a) a person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest, execution of process, or other performance of duty by a public servant under color of law, but excessive force may be resisted;....
Study Draft, Federal Criminal Code (The National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws), p. 39 (1970). The Comment to § 603 explained:
This section states the rule permitting the use of force to protect oneself from imminent harm. Present federal law on resisting unlawful arrest has been changed, by paragraph (a), to make legality of the arrest irrelevant. The purpose of this change is to discourage self-help for the resolution of such an issue.
Id. at 40.9 The use of force to resist an unlawful arrest is thus curtailed.
Legislative history shows that the North Dakota legislature specifically recognized this change:
Any person is justified in using force in self-defense against imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or unlawful detention. However, if the force used is against a peace officer making an arrest [452]*452which later turns out to be unlawful, such use of force will be unjustified.
Report of the North Dakota Legislative Council, p. 83 (1973). Other states, too, are moving away from an unqualified right to resist an unlawful search or seizure by police. 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 1.13(a). This movement is attributed to the influence of the Model Penal Code published by the American Law Institute, which recommended that the “use of force is not justifiable * * * to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful.” Model Penal Code, Section 3.04(2)(a) (1962). The draftsmen of the Model Penal Code explained that it
should be possible to provide adequate remedies against illegal arrest, without permitting the arrested person to resort to force — a course of action highly likely to result in greater injury even to himself than the detention.
Many states have now come to this position. 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 1.13(a), p. 289, n. 8.10 Forceful resistance to an unlawful search or seizure is no longer automatically excused, as a matter of law, by exclusion of related evidence or by judicial dismissal.
Still, unlawful police action is not completely excused either. As Saavedra recognizes, the courts retain the power to act upon “evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as intentional harassment or the use of excessive force.” 396 N.W.2d at 305. Particularly, if an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct, the courts will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of charges. See City of Bismarck v. Schoppert, 469 N.W.2d 808 (N.D.1991).11 In many cases, judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate.
More immediately, the criminal statutes still recognize justification defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct. Resistance to “excessive force” by an officer acting under color of law is a factual defense to any criminal charge arising from the resistance. NDCC 12.1-05-03(1). Specifically, where the charge is preventing arrest, as in this case, the defining statute authorizes “a defense to a prosecution under this section that the public servant was not acting lawfully....” NDCC 12.1-08-02(2).12 Factual defenses [453]*453remain as remedies for unlawful official conduct.
These defenses do not depend on judicial suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges. Rather, they depend upon full presentation of the facts to the trier of fact, usually the jury, for determination of the independent nature of the charged offense. Official misconduct is a justification defense to a charge of resisting arrest.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in excluding evidence and dismissing the charge of preventing arrest against Ritter as a matter of law. We reverse the dismissal of the charge and remand for trial, including submission to the jury of Ritter’s defense that the officers were not acting lawfully in arresting him for resisting arrest.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., and GIERKE and YANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.