the vehicle . The driver refused . The officer then further detained the vehicle and a canine unit was summoned to search the vehicle . After the search of the vehicle , officers seized two pounds of marijuana . The driver and his passenger conditionally pled guilty to charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver . On appeal , the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed their convictions concluding that , even though – individually – the conduct of the driver and the passenger were innocent , the totality of the circumstances involved ( nervousness , inconsistencies in travel plans , certain items in the vehicle such as energy drinks , minimal amount of luggage , air fresheners and a GPS , the occupants ’ criminal history , and the fact that the vehicle was a rental vehicle ), created a reasonable and articulable suspicion on the part of the police officer that the vehicle occupants were engaged in criminal activity and thus their continued detention until a canine unit arrived was lawful . The convictions were affirmed . presenting or defending the case ; and the availability of less severe alternative sanctions . ( internal citations omitted ). The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that Courts should generally employ remedies for spoliation of evidence less drastic than dismissal . However , in this case , at the time of the spoliation , the evidence was in the plaintiff ’ s control and plaintiff gave defendant no notice of her intent to demolish the house until all practical ability to have an expert ( on defendant ’ s behalf ) inspect the home was removed , thereby prejudicing defendant ’ s ability to defend the lawsuit . The Supreme Court stated that “ commencing a lawsuit and spoiling access to evidence within weeks of that commencement is the type of conduct that should be deterred .” The Supreme Court stated that even under the less severe ( than dismissal ) alternative remedy suggested by plaintiff , defendant was still limited to the evidence created by plaintiff , was at a disadvantage in defending the case , and under the facts of the case the District Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the sanction of dismissal against plaintiff .
Ihli v . Lazzaretto , 2015 ND 151 , 864 N . W . 2d 483
In June 2011 , plaintiff ’ s Minot home flooded . After defendant began working on repairing and remodeling the plaintiff ’ s home , a dispute arose between the parties regarding the quality of the work . Defendant then ceased working on the home . On July 23 , 2013 , plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that he performed the remodeling work in a negligent manner . After commencing the suit , plaintiff learned she was eligible for disaster relief funding in “ late August 2013 .” After learning this , plaintiff ’ s counsel granted defendant ’ s counsel an extension to file an Answer until Sept . 13 , 2013 . However , plaintiff allowed her house to be demolished on Sept . 6 , 2013 ( apparently before defendant answered ), because she was eligible for disaster relief funding .
Defendant answered the Complaint and , thereafter , moved to dismiss the Complaint due to the plaintiff ’ s spoliation of evidence . The District Court granted defendant ’ s motion and dismissed the plaintiff ’ s suit .
On appeal , plaintiff argued that the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing her Complaint , as a sanction for spoliation of evidence , because the sanction was overly severe . The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that there is a duty to preserve evidence when litigation is reasonably foreseeable . “ Spoliation is the destruction of or failure to preserve probative evidence .” When evidence relevant to a lawsuit is destroyed , sanctions may be appropriate . ( internal citations omitted ). A District Court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate remedies for spoliation of evidence , and a case by case analysis of the facts and circumstances in each case is required before sanctions are imposed . In determining what sanctions are appropriate for spoliation of evidence , Courts should consider the culpability or state of mind of the party against whom sanctions are being imposed ; whether there has been prejudice suffered by the party seeking the sanctions and , if so , to what degree – including the impact it has on
Security for Today and Tomorrow .
LSS GUARDIANSHIP OPTIONS
Guardianship & Conservatorship Power of Attorney Personal Representative of the Estate
LSS POOLED TRUST
Now Available in Minnesota & North Dakota Special Needs Pooled Trust Supplemental Needs Pooled Trust
888.806.6844
lssmn . org / protectyourassets
WINTER 2017 19