92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

62
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA COUNTY OF NELSON State of North Dakota, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Rodney Brossart, ) ) Defendant. ) State of North Dakota, ) v. ) Susan Brossart, ) State of North Dakota, ) v. ) Abby Brossart, ) State of North Dakota, ) v. ) Alex Brossart, ) State of North Dakota, ) v. ) Thomas Brossart, ) State of North Dakota, ) v. ) Jacob Brossart, ) IN DISTRICT COURT NORTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS File Nos. 32-2011-CR-00049, 00071 File No. 32-2011-CR-00074 File Nos. 32-2011-CR-00050, 00076 File No. 32-2011-CR-00046 File No. 32-2011-CR-00048 File No. 32-2011-CR-00047 TO: DOUGLAS G. MANBECK., NELSON COUNTY STATE'S AITORNEY, 320 3 RD STREET WEST, P.O. BOX 533, LAKOTA, ND, 58344-0533, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT based on N.D.R.Crim.P. 12 and N.D.R.Ct. 3.2, the Defendants jointly move to dismiss the criminal charges filed against them. The Defendants request a hearing and oral argument. The Defendants move to dismiss the criminal charges Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4/10120123:03:02 PM Nelson County, NO

Transcript of 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Page 1: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State of North Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State of North Dakota ) v )

Susan Brossart )

State of North Dakota ) v )

Abby Brossart )

State of North Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

State of North Dakota ) v )

Thomas Brossart )

State of North Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

TO DOUGLAS G MANBECK NELSON COUNTY STATES AITORNEY 320 3RD

STREET WEST PO BOX 533 LAKOTA ND 58344-0533 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT based on NDRCrimP 12 and NDRCt 32 the

Defendants jointly move to dismiss the criminal charges filed against them The Defendants

request a hearing and oral argument The Defendants move to dismiss the criminal charges

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

or alternatively to suppress evidence as a result of outrageous governmental conduct

unlawful surveillance illegal seizures and searches unconstitutional application of North

Dakota law vindictive prosecution and other statutory and constitutional injury

This Motion will be based upon this Notice ofMotion the Brief in Support ofMotion

attached herewith the attached exhibits all papers and documents presently on file herein as

well as any other documentary material and further evidence filed prior to or introduced at

the time of any hearing on Defendants Motion

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE TIIAT NDRet 32 provides 14 days after service of a

brief within which to serve and file an answer brief and other supporting papers Upon the

filing of briefs or upon expiration of the time for filing the Motion is deemed submitted to

the Court unless counsel for any party requests oral argument on the motion If any party

who has timely served and filed a brief requests oral argument the request must be granted

A timely request for oral argument must be granted even if the movant has previously served

notice indicating that the motion is to be decided on briefs The party requesting oral

argument shall secure a time for the argument and serve notice upon all other parties

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE TIIAT failure to file a brief by the adverse party may be

deemed an admission that in the opinion of party or counsel the Motion is meritorious

Extensions of time for filing briefs and other supporting papers or for continuance of the

hearing on a motion may be granted only by written order of Court All requests for

extension of time or continuance whether written or oral must be accompanied by an

appropriate order form

2

Filedmiddot Clerk or District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

~V Dated this JfL da of April 2012middot

By __~__~~________ Bruce D Quic (03510) Mark A Friese (05646) VOGEL LAW FIRM 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY BROSSART

Dated this 0 da ofApril 2012

By ________~=-______ _ Ross Brandborg (06029) BRANDBORG amp GAST 35 4th Street North Suite 201 Fargo ND 58102 Telephone 7012370099

ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

i

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF NELSON NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Rodney Brossart

Plaintiff

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

State ofNorth Dakota v

Susan Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota v

Abby Brossart

) ) )

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota v

Alex Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

v Thomas Brossart

) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

State ofNorth Dakota v

Jacob Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

I

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct of governmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a fonner missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart farm Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart farm Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

Rodney pumping water near his farm on l09th Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 2: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

or alternatively to suppress evidence as a result of outrageous governmental conduct

unlawful surveillance illegal seizures and searches unconstitutional application of North

Dakota law vindictive prosecution and other statutory and constitutional injury

This Motion will be based upon this Notice ofMotion the Brief in Support ofMotion

attached herewith the attached exhibits all papers and documents presently on file herein as

well as any other documentary material and further evidence filed prior to or introduced at

the time of any hearing on Defendants Motion

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE TIIAT NDRet 32 provides 14 days after service of a

brief within which to serve and file an answer brief and other supporting papers Upon the

filing of briefs or upon expiration of the time for filing the Motion is deemed submitted to

the Court unless counsel for any party requests oral argument on the motion If any party

who has timely served and filed a brief requests oral argument the request must be granted

A timely request for oral argument must be granted even if the movant has previously served

notice indicating that the motion is to be decided on briefs The party requesting oral

argument shall secure a time for the argument and serve notice upon all other parties

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE TIIAT failure to file a brief by the adverse party may be

deemed an admission that in the opinion of party or counsel the Motion is meritorious

Extensions of time for filing briefs and other supporting papers or for continuance of the

hearing on a motion may be granted only by written order of Court All requests for

extension of time or continuance whether written or oral must be accompanied by an

appropriate order form

2

Filedmiddot Clerk or District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

~V Dated this JfL da of April 2012middot

By __~__~~________ Bruce D Quic (03510) Mark A Friese (05646) VOGEL LAW FIRM 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY BROSSART

Dated this 0 da ofApril 2012

By ________~=-______ _ Ross Brandborg (06029) BRANDBORG amp GAST 35 4th Street North Suite 201 Fargo ND 58102 Telephone 7012370099

ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

i

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF NELSON NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Rodney Brossart

Plaintiff

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

State ofNorth Dakota v

Susan Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota v

Abby Brossart

) ) )

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota v

Alex Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

v Thomas Brossart

) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

State ofNorth Dakota v

Jacob Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

I

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct of governmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a fonner missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart farm Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart farm Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

Rodney pumping water near his farm on l09th Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 3: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

~V Dated this JfL da of April 2012middot

By __~__~~________ Bruce D Quic (03510) Mark A Friese (05646) VOGEL LAW FIRM 218 NP Avenue PO Box 1389 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY BROSSART

Dated this 0 da ofApril 2012

By ________~=-______ _ Ross Brandborg (06029) BRANDBORG amp GAST 35 4th Street North Suite 201 Fargo ND 58102 Telephone 7012370099

ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

i

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF NELSON NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Rodney Brossart

Plaintiff

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

State ofNorth Dakota v

Susan Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota v

Abby Brossart

) ) )

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota v

Alex Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

v Thomas Brossart

) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

State ofNorth Dakota v

Jacob Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

I

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct of governmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a fonner missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart farm Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart farm Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

Rodney pumping water near his farm on l09th Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 4: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

i

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF NELSON NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Rodney Brossart

Plaintiff

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

State ofNorth Dakota v

Susan Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota v

Abby Brossart

) ) )

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota v

Alex Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

v Thomas Brossart

) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

State ofNorth Dakota v

Jacob Brossart

) ) )

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

I

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct of governmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a fonner missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart farm Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart farm Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

Rodney pumping water near his farm on l09th Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 5: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct of governmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a fonner missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart farm Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart farm Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

Rodney pumping water near his farm on l09th Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 6: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart farm Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart farm Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

Rodney pumping water near his farm on l09th Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 7: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratcheting Jacobs arm behind his back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 of theNorth Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

half mile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention ofa no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of fIrearms

The Brossarts told officers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the firearms in the house Officers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO J

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 8: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowcalf pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their torment of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal of the charges

5

Filed - Clerk Of District Courl 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 9: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure ofthe livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the personmiddot suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Fliedmiddot Clerk Of Oislricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 10: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock Ifthe court fmds that the

livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part of police See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence ofownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

defmition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

F lied Clerk Of Dlstricl Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 11: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

statutory defmition of estray) 3613-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus eStraYs are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under North Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 ~ 14 601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confinement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset multiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In file 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even if the Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See LaPorte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Flied Clerk Of Disrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 12: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

outlined above the trespassing- cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notifY either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 13: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom of speech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397 414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v California 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis 1

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v SchoIllert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle 1 concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell 1 concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filed - Cler( Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 14: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Terminiello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punisbment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in file 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filed - Clerk Of Distrlct Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County NO

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 15: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence of officers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence oflaw enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453 457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 16: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29-06-15 a law enforcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justifY an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seize Mr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filed - Clerk Of Oistrict Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 17: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390 392 (ND

1995)) Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept of Transp 2011 ND 235 ~ 1

807 N W2d 602 The rule pennitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R LaFave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d ed1996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidence-

including Mr Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 ~ 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

~ 22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 18: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

155 at 1Lmiddot If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdman

170 NW2d 872 (ND1969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing INS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978)) Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 19: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230302 PM

Nelson Counly NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 20: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury resulting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question oflaw for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppen 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed bull Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 21: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement condnct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

ann No reasonable person would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

18

F jled - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 22: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See ~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infiltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned wcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use ofUmnanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 411012012 30302 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 23: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution made applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end--were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson 1 dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the fIrst and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government )

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brassarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest of Rodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filed Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 24: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

conduct In State v Ktunmer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting I Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 atp 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle l concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

484 96 SCt 1646 48 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset ofthis case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure of Rodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 25: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed tomiddot safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White J dissenting) United States v Calandrb 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 26: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

r0 Dated this (0 ~April 2012 ~0_1_2_____---shyBYmiddot~ ~

Bruce D Quick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ~ 58102 POBox l389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo~ 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATIORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB THOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed - Clerk Of DistriCt Court 4110201230302 PM

Nelson County ND

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 27: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF NELSON

State ofNorth Dakota ) )

Plaintiff ) )

v ) )

Rodney Brossart ) )

Defendant )

State ofNorth Dakota ) ~ )

Susan Brossart ) --------~--------------------------------------------State ofNorth Dakota )

v ) Abby Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Alex Brossart )

v ) Thomas Brossart )

State ofNorth Dakota ) v )

Jacob Brossart )

IN DISTRICT COURT

NORTIIEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00049 00071

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

File No 32-2011-CR-00048

File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Rodney Susan Abbey Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart (collectively Brossarts)

jointly move for an Order of the Court dismissing the criminal charges or alternatively

suppressing evidence The Brossarts propose the Court join their respective cases for the

purposes of a single evidentiary hearing and oral argument at a date and time to be

established by the Clerk of Court

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 28: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

FACTS

Based on the discovery to date including a video copy of the torturous beating of

Rodney Brossart which is attached to this Brief at a hearing on the Brossarts Motion the

evidence will show The Brossarts are lifelong North Dakota residents residing in Nelson

County North Dakota The Brossarts are an exceedingly close-knit family who prefer the

company of one another over the company of extended family or friends The Brossarts are

exceedingly hard-working farmers and ranchers who prefer to limit their contact with

governmental actors The Brossarts have been repeat victims of overreaching officious and

unlawful conduct ofgovernmental officers

On the evening of June 22 2011 or early morning hours of June 23 2011 three

cowcalf pairs escaped from the Michigan North Dakota ranch of Chris Anderson (Mr

Anderson) The cattle wandered to the Brossarts property and commenced to devour feed

and hay intended for the Brossarts own cattle The Brossarts not knowing the owner of the

cattle secured the cattle in a pen Shortly thereafter Mr Anderson located the cattle on the

Brossarts property-a former missile site specifically and legally described in the search

warrant on file with the Court Mr Anderson spoke directly to Rodney Brossart seeking the

return of the cattle Consistent with North Dakota law Rodney asked that Mr Anderson

tender remuneration for the damage caused by the cattle to secure their return See NDCC

sect 36-11-10(1) (noting a person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock

may take up the offending livestock) see also id (noting the person may retain the livestock

until damages have been paid or security for damages is approved by a district judge)

Rather than contacting his insurance agency and rather than tendering the required

lawful charges Mr Anderson went directly to the Nelson County Sheriffs office enlisting

2

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 29: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

the assistance of Nelson County Deputy Eric Braathen (Dep Braathen) Rather than

advising Mr Anderson that remuneration was required and intent to commence a

disturbance at the Brossart fann Dep Braathen mobilized State Patrol units and Stockmans

Association Inspector Fred Frederickson (Insp Frederickson) Braathen advised Insp

Frederickson that there have been problems with Rodney in the past apparently referring

to instances in which law enforcement had agitated Rodney during the service of civil

papers

While traveling to the Brossart fann Insp Frederickson and Dep Braathen located

109thRodney pumping water near his farm on Avenue Northeast Officers approached

Rodney while Jacob Brossart stood nearby When Rodney declined to release the cattle

without payment for damages officers insisted that they would go onto the Brossart

property to which Rodney advised the officers that they would not return if they went on his

property without permission Officers then advised Rodney that they wquld secure a

warrant and provide documentation of ownership of the cattle Rodney again advised the

officers that the cattle were trespassing on his property and he attempted to return to his

work Braathen prohibited Rodney from returning to work telling Rodney that he was under

arrest The basis for the arrest was never provided quite likely because the purported arrest

was unlawful

When Rodney would not immediately relent to the unlawful arrest the brazen torture

that followed defies belief That torture in part is captured on video and a copy of the

recording is attached to this brief Like a water-boarding interrogator Braathan repeatedly

inflicted Taser electrical shocks to Rodney all while Rodney violently convulsed in a puddle

ofwater Horrified at the ongoing torture Jacob attempted to run to his father Frederickson

3

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 30: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

physically blocked Jacobs rescue effort ratclieting -Jacobs ann behind his -back and

handcuffing him Frederickson directed Jacob to Braathans squad car and locked him

inside

Meanwhile Abby and Thomas Brossart arrived on scene Upon seeing her beaten

father Abby approached Dep Braathen and allegedly pushed the deputys hand away from

her face Baathen summarily arrested Abby for felony assault upon a police officer

Fredrickson approached Thomas seeking permission to check on the cattle that were

located on the Brossart property Thomas advised Frederickson that a warrant was necessary

to enter Brossart property Frederickson with the assistance of the Nelson County States

Attorney obtained a warrant to search the missile site located in the West Half of the

Northwest Quarter of Section 29 Township 152 Range 59 Nelson County ND The

warrant denoted that three cow calf pairs were secreted and concealed on the property

in violation of Chapter 36-13 ofthe-North Dakota Century Code

Officers returned with a search warrant Frederickson advised two Brossart brothers

of the search warrant and the Brossart brothers returned to their home located at least one-

halfmile from the missile site and clearly outside the curtilage of the home Discontent with

simply securing the cattle and leaving law enforcement entered into the private yard of the

Brossart family in direct contravention of a no trespassing sign and without consent a search

warrant or an exception to the warrant When officers made their warrantless entry onto the

Brossart property they observed several Brossart family members in possession of flrearms

The Brossarts told offIcers they had no right to be there The Brossarts ultimately went back

inside leaving the flrearms in the house OffIcers retreated leaving a patrol vehicle in

Brossart driveway

4

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4f10f2012 30037 PM

Nelson County_ ND

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 31: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Officers then mobilized state and county law enforcement a law enforcement

commando team from Grand Forks and they dispatched an unmanned aerial spy plane

Before the troops could storm the Brossart ranch officers called off the mission overnight

and scheduled a meeting the next morning

Officers commandos and the spy plane conducted surveillance on the Brossart

property the next morning Officers arrived at the missile site cut a lock and secured the

three cowca1f pairs While the cattle were being loaded a farm tractor with two occupants

and an all-terrain vehicle with one passenger approached the far end of the missile site

Commandos seized the two vehicles physically pulling two occupants from the tractor and

one from the all-terrain vehicle All three were arrested

With five members of the Brossart family in custody and with the cattle in the

custody of the brand inspector officers were still unwilling to end their tonnent of the

Brossart family Officers sought and obtained a second warrant to search the entire Brossart

farmstead for weapons

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Thisis a case ofoutrageous government conduct for which this Court should exercise

supervisory power to bar prosecution As will be outlined below alone or combined

prosecution should be barred or evidence should be suppressed based upon 1) outrageous

governmental conduct 2) the unlawful warrantless arrest of Rodney Brossart 3) the

provocation and excessive use of force against Rodney Brossart 4) the unlawful defacto

arrest of Jacob Brossart 5) warrantless occupation of the farm 6) the warrantless use of

unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft and 7) the use of commandos to infiltrate the

Brossart ranch The combined injury requires dismissal ofthe charges

5

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 32: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

BACKGROUND

This entire case was set in motion by a mistaken law enforcement interpretation of

North Dakota law During the initial contact between Rodney Brossart Dep Braathen and

Insp Frederickson Mr Brossart repeatedly advised officers that he was lawfully detaining

the cattle as trespassing livestock Officiously-and falsely-officers attempted to claim

authority to dispossess Mr Brossart of his lawful lien claiming the cattle were estrays

North Dakota estray law Ch36-13 NDCC however does not apply Instead Mr

Brossarts lawful possession of the cattle was-as he insisted-govemed by NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which provides

sect 36-11-10 Trespassing livestock may be distrained--Notice to owner-shySecurity for release

1 The person suffering damages by reason of the trespass of any livestock may take up the offending livestock The person suffering damages shall notify the owner or the person in possession of the livestock at the time of the trespass of the seizure of the livestock witho~t unnecessary delay if the owner or person in possession is known to the person suffering damages and is a resident of and present within the county in which the trespass occurred The person suffering damages may retain the livestock in that persons custody until

a The damages sustained by reason of the trespass and the costs in the action to recover the damages have been paid or

b Good and sufficient security for the payment of the damages and costs is given provided the security is approved by a district judge serving the county in which the livestock is taken up

2 If the owner of the offending livestock elects to give security the owner shall give to the person holding the livestock notice that security will be given and the date and hour when the security will be submitted to the district judge for approval The notice must be given at least one day before the date set for the submission of the security to the judge The cost of serving notices required under this section may be taxed as costs in the action

3 Where applicable the provisions of section 36-11-07 may be raised as an affirmative defense in any proceedings under this section and the owner or

6

Filed - Clerk Of Oislrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson Counly NO

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 33: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

person entitled to possession of the livestock may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the return of the livestock If the court fmds that the livestock has been wrongfully distrained the person who causes the livestock to be wrongfully distrained is liable for all damages suffered by the owner or person entitled to possession of the livestock together with the costs of the action and reasonable attorneys fees

(emphasis added) Simply the Brossarts were in lawful possession of the trespassing cattle

and law enforcement efforts to dispossess the Brossarts of the cattle constituted criminal

conduct on the part ofpolice See NDCC sect 36-11-19 (noting persons who take livestock

lawfully held under the trespassing NDCC sect 36-11-10 are guilty of a class B

misdemeanor) Braathen and Frederickson should be prosecuted not the Brossarts

Wrongly law enforcement claims the cattle were estrays requiring the Brossarts to

notify the sheriff or chief brand inspector as provided by NDCC sect 36-13-01 Contrary to

law enforcement claims estray law is inapplicable because the trespassing animals were not

estrays See NDCC sect 36-22-01 (defining estray Any marked or branded cattle horse or

mule found at any livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or satisfactory

evidence of ownership) At common law an estray was any beast by nature tame or

reclaimable such as a sheep ox pig or horse which was found wandering at large or

lost its owner being unknown 4 Am Jur 2d Animals sect 46 (2012) see also Campbell v

Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) (An estray is a wandering animal whose owner is

unknown-an animal that has strayed away and lost itself A wandering beast which no

one seeks follows or claims) (citation omitted) While the broader common law

definition may suggest any wandering animal is an estray North Dakota law recognizes that

there is no common law where the law is declared by the code NDCC sect 1-01-06 The

present trespassing animals were not estrays See NDCC sectsect 36-22-01 (providing the

7

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 34: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

statutory definition of estray) 361-3-01 (permitting taking possession of-an estray provided

the person does not know who owns the estray) Campbell 172 NW at 810

The rights and remedies established for trespassing animals versus estrays are

significant and long-recognized See eg Martin v Ludowese 184 NW 575 (ND 1921)

Under forth Dakota law specific statutes control general statutes City of Bismarck v

Fettig 1999 ND 193 14601 NW2d 247 (citing NDCC sect 1-02-07) Section 36-11-10

NDCC is specific and unambiguous a person damaged by the trespass of livestock

irrespective of whether the owner of the livestock is known or not may take up the

offending livestock A person taking possession of trespassing livestock shall notify the

owner of the livestock without unnecessary delay NDCC sect 36-11-10(1) Mr

Anderson the owner of the trespassing cattle had actual knowledge of the location of the

cattle within hours of their confmement Contrary to law enforcement claims the Brossarts

were neither required to notify law enforcement nor were they required to surrender the

cattle until Mr Anderson fulfilled his statutory obligations under NDCC sect 36-11-101

1 At the outset mUltiple charges against Rodney Brossart are improvident and must be dismissed

Rodney Brossart faces numerous improvident charges In fIle 32-2011-CR-00049

Mr Brossart is charged with 1) failure to comply with estray chapter and 2) preventing

arrest or discharge of other duties The charges allege Mr Brossart failed to notify either

the sheriff or chief brand inspector after taking possession and control of estray cattle As

1 Even ifthe Court were to credit law enforcements tortured application ofNorth Dakota law to conclude the trespassing animals were estrays Mr Andersons actual knowledge of the location ofthe cattle satisfied any notice obligation the Brossarts would have had See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927) (when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps need not be taken)

8

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 35: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

outlined above the trespassing cattle were not estrays Mr Brossart had absolutely no

obligation to notify either the sheriff or the brand inspector As a matter of law the charge of

failing to comply with estray chapter fails

Equally as a matter of law the charge of preventing arrest or discharge of other

duties must fail The prosecution charges when approached by law enforcement inquiring

about the estray cattle [Mr Brossart] refused to allow access to the cattle and resisted

arrest As outlined above the cattle were not estrays The owner of the cattle had actual

knowledge of their whereabouts Contrary to the Complaint Mr Brossart had no obligation

to allow [law enforcement] access to the cattle Any claim that Mr Brossart prevented

arrest or discharge of duties must be dismissed as a matter of law As outlined above Mr

Brossart had no obligation to permit law enforcement access to the trespassing cattle As

will be outlined below Mr Brossart had every right to decline unlawful arrest and excessive

force

In file 32-2011-CR-000071 Mr Brossart is charged with among other things theft of

property and terrorizing The prosecution alleges Mr Brossart exercised unauthorized

control over three cow-calf pairs and refused to return the cattle when requested to do so

by law enforcement officers who were attempting to enforce the estray laws What

constitutes unauthorized control requires interpretation and application of NDCC sect 36shy

11-10 which permitted Mr Brossart to distrain the cattle and which did not authorize law

enforcement seizure of the cattle Interpretation and application of a statute is a question of

law State v Deutscher 2009 ND 98 ~ 15 766 NW2d 442 447 (citing In re Estate of

Samuelson 2008 ND 190 ~ 11 757 NW2d 44) Because NDCC sect 36-11-10 vested Mr

9

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 36: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Brossart authority to control the trespassing cattle he was in lawful possession and is not

subject to prosecution for theft

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the

freedom ofspeech In Texas v Johnson 491 US 397414 (1989) the Court said If there

is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the government may not

prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or

disagreeable The First Amendment ordinarily denies a State the power to prohibit

dissemination of thoughts or ideas even if those thoughts or ideas are false and fraught

with evil consequence Whitney v Californi~ 274 US 357 374 (1927) (Brandeis J

concurring)

Rodney Brossarts statement was not a true threat and prosecution for that

statement violates the First Amendment See Virginia v Black 538 US 343 (2003)

(holding only true threats are denied First Amendment protection) see also City of

Bismarck v Schoggert 469 NW2d 808 814 (ND 1991) (Vande Walle J concurring)

(the First Amendment protects unsavory expression as well as approbatory expression)

The First Amendment prohibits prosecution except when a speaker conveys a serious

expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence Black 538 US at 359

(citation omitted) Mr Brossarts comments were not fighting words and therefore did

not by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach ofthe peace

See Chaglinsky v New Hampshire 315 US 568 572 (1942) Both the United States

Supreme Court and the North Dakota Supreme Court have recognized that comments

arguably constituting fighting words when directed to police officers are not Lewis v

New Orleans 415 US 130 135 (1974) (powell J concurring) (A properly trained officer

10

Filedmiddot Clerk Of DislMct Court 4101201230037 PM

Nelson County N D

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 37: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen

and thus be less likely to respond belligerently) Houston v Hill 482 US at 451 461

(1987) (The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and

challenge directed at police officers) City of Bismarck v Nassif 449 NW2d 789 795

(ND 1989) City ofBismarck v Schoppert 469 NW2d 808 (ND 1991)

In Tenniniello v Chicago 337 US 1 4 (1949) the Court said Speech is often

provocative and challenging [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or

punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious

substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience annoyance or unrest Here

when Rodney Brossart uttered an offhand comment about not returning from a trip to his

property police did not respond with any type of immediate enforcement action Instead

they requested Mr Brossart desist making comments of that nature Mr Brossart complied

with the request After further conversation and when Mr Brossart attempted to return to

work only then did police arrest Mr Brossart for some uncertain offense Mr Brossarts

comments-rendered only after repeated law enforcement threats to invade the Brossart

property-do not constitute true threats and are protected by the First Amendment

Both charges in fJle 32-2011-CR-00049 (failure to comply with estray chapter and

preventing arrest or discharge of other duties) are facially improvident The charges of theft

and terrorizing in file 32-2011-CR-00071 are equally improvident Because these charges all

involve interpretation and application ofNDCC sect 36-11-10 and the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution the invalidity of the charges is a question of law requiring

resolution without trial As an initial matter this Court should dismiss the estray preventing

arrest theft and terrorizing charges against Rodney Brossart

11

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 38: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

2 Thewarrantless seizure and arrest of Rodney Brossart was unlawful requiring dismissal of the charges or alternatively suppression of all resulting evidence

Because an offense did not occur or alternatively because no offense occurred in the

presence ofofficers warrantless arrest was not authorized Because there was no objectively

reasonable suspicion or probable cause police lacked authority to seize and arrest

A Warrantless arrest was not permitted because no offense was committed or alternatively no offense was committed in the presence of law enforcement

Law enforcement officiously and falsely claimed Rodney Brossart was subject to

arrest for violating North Dakota estray law Because the trespassing cattle were not estrays

law enforcement had absolutely no authority to compel release of the trespassing cattle

before Mr Anderson complied with NDCC sect 36-11-10 Mr Brossart had not committed

an offense-he simply and rightly insisted that he would retain possession of the cattle until

Mr Anderson complied with the law The officers erroneous belief that Mr Brossart

committed an offense does not obviate the unlawful arrest see Colling v Hjelle 125 NW

453457 (ND 1964) (when no offense has been perpetrated circumstances warranting a

reasonable belief that it was committed will not justify the officer in making the arrest

without a warrant) (citation omitted) see also id at 458 (a misdemeanor must have been

actually committed to justify an arrest without a warrant and the officer must determine at

his peril whether an offense has been committed or not) (citation omitted)

The prosecution claims Mr Brossart failed to notify either the sheriff or the chief

brand inspector that he had taken control of Mr Andersons cattle Even if the Court were

to consider the inapplicable estray statute well-settled North Dakota law establishes that any

obligation to notify law enforcement was extinguished by Andersons actual knowledge of

12

Filed Clerk Of Oistnct Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 39: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

the location of the cattle See La Porte v Van Buskirk 217 NW 173 176 (ND 1927)

(when the owner of an estray appears and demands the animals the purpose of the statute

with respect to notice is satisfied and further statutory steps including law enforcement

notification need not be taken) Law enforcement fabricated a claim that Mr Brossart

violated the law No offense was committed and the resulting arrest was unlawful

Moreover Dep Braathen and Insp Frederickson had no authority to arrest Mr

Brossart for a claimed misdemeanor offense which did not occur in their presence Under

NDCC sect 29~06~15 a law e~orcement officer may arrest for felonies based on probable

cause or for misdemeanors committed or attempted in the officers presence See also

NDCC sect 36-09-24(2) (providing authority of brand inspectors and fieldmen to make

arrests upon view and without [a] warrant for violations committed in the inspectors

presence) Because no offense was committed law enforcement lacked authority to arrest

Colling v Hjelle 125 NW 453 458 (ND 1964) (a misdemeanor must have been actually

committed to justify an arrest without a warrant) Moreover because the claimed criminal

activity did not occur in the presence of officers they had no authority to arrest Mr Brossart

State v Ritter 472 NW2d 444447 (ND 1991) Mr Brossarts arrest was unlawful and

all evidence gained by means of [that] unlawful arrest is not admissible at trial State v

Wetsch 304 NW2d 6768 (citing State v Mees 272 NW2d 284287 (ND 1978))

More significantly police had no authority to seizeMr Brossart in the first instance

The attached video indisputably shows that Mr Brossart was occupied with work when

officers approached him Mr Brossart candidly courteously and repeatedly told officers

that he was retaining the trespassing cattle Mr Brossart attempted to continue his work but

13

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 40: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

he was prohibited from doing so by the actions of officers The officious and overbearing

conduct ofDep Braathen is indisputable

B The warrantless seizure continued seizure and de facto arrest of Rodney Brossart were unlawful

A seizure occurs when an officer has in some way restrained a citizens liberty by

means of physical force or simple show of authority City of Fargo v Sivertson 1997 ND

204 8571 NW2d 137 When a seizure occurs is an objective legal inquiry for the Court

See State v Leher 2002 ND 171 11 (citing State v Hawley 540 NW2d 390392 (ND

1995raquo Fredericksons reports denote several instances in which Dep Braathen was issuing

commands for Rodney to stay where he was rather than returning to work This conduct

clearly constitutes a seizure Generally police must have a reasonable suspicion to seize

and probable cause to arrest Engstrom v North Dakota Dept ofTransp 2011 ND 235 1

807 NW2d 602 The rule permitting warrantless reasonable suspicion seizures should be

expressly limited to investigation of serious offenses) 4 Wayne R Lafave Search and

Seizure sect 92(c) at 32 (3d edl996) see also United States v Hensley 469 US 221 229

(1985) (stating that it is unclear whether Terry stops to investigate all past crimes however

serious are permitted) The initial seizure was unlawful and the resulting evidenceshy

includingMI Brossarts statements-must be suppressed

Mr Brossart further argues that the seizure quickly became a de facto arrest not

supported by probable cause An arrest occurs when circumstances exist that would cause a

reasonable person to conclude he was under arrest and not free to leave City of Devils

Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 10 755 NW2d 485 (citing State v Anderson 2006 ND 44

22 710 NW2d 392) An arrest must be supported by probable cause Grove 2008 ND

14

Filed - Cierilt Of DIstrict Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 41: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

155 at ~ 11 If an investigative detention lasts too long or its manner of execution

unreasonably infringes an individuals Fourth Amendment interests it may no longer be

justified as an investigative stop and as a full-fledged seizure must be supported by probable

cause Id at ~ 15 The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the officers complete

unwillingness to recognize Mr Brossarts superior claim of possessory interest in the

trespassing cattle The video clearly shows that officers repeatedly interfered with Mr

Brossarts ability to return to work The unlawful seizure quickly became an unlawful

defacto arrest and then an unlawful warrantless custodial arrest

If the court fails to exclude evidence derived from an improper arrest and the error is

not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the defendants conviction will be reversed See

City of Wahpeton v Johnson 303 NW2d 565 567 (ND 1981) (citing State v Erdm~

170 NW2d 872 (NDl969) Rule 52(a) NDRCrimP) It is axiomatic that evidence will

not be admissible in a criminal trial when it was seized by means of an unlawful arrest

State v Wahl 450 NW2d 710 714 (ND 1990) (citing LNS v Lopez-Mendoza 468 US

1032 104 SCt 3479 82 LEd2d 778 (1984) United States v Wenzel 485 FSupp 481

(DCMinn1980) State v Wetsch 304 NW2d 67 (ND1981) State v Mees 272 NW2d

284 (ND1978raquo Because Mr Brossart was seized without reasonable suspicion subjected

to a de facto arrest for which probable cause was absent and because Mr Brossart was

unlawfully arrested and the resulting evidence must be suppressed or the charges dismissed

3 Police provoked and used excessive force against Rodney Brossart requiring dismissal of the charges

Dep Braathen was intent on arresting Mr Brossart whether he had authority to do so

or not Any reasonable police officer would recognize the obvious absence of authority to

15

Flied - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 42: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

seize or inspect the trespassing cattle or to make an arrest for an estray violation involving

cattle that were not estrays Rather than encouraging Mr Anderson to comply with the

statutory procedures required to obtain return of the trespassing cattle Braathen and

Frederickson sought to incite Mr Brossart by officiously inserting themselves into a civil

dispute over which law enforcement had no investigative or other authority Police through

their own actions unlawfully created the circumstances that the State now uses in an effort to

prosecute the Brossarts This provocation is intolerable

North Dakota law clearly prohibits the use of excessive force to make an arrest See

NDCC sect 29-06-10 (A person who is arrested may not be subjected to unnecessary or

unreasonable force nor to any greater restraint than is necessary for the persons detention)

Police may use force to arrest but only if the defendant flees or forcibly resists NDCC

sect 29-06-13 The video and testimony will clearly show that Mr Brossart did not forcibly

resist or flee Instead he repeatedly attempted to assert his lawful right to retain the

trespassing cattle He attempted to return to work He attempted to peacefully terminate

further discussions with police Police were unrelenting threatening arrest threatening that

they would obtain search warrants and wholly refusing to leave Mr Brossart alone When

officers continued their threats Mr Brossart responded by encouraging officers to refrain

from entering upon his property or they would not return Officers continued in their

efforts to compel Mr Brossart to forfeit his constitutional rights permitting officers

warrantless entry onto his property to purportedly inspect the trespassing cattle When Mr

Brossart refused Braathen advised Mr Brossart he was being arrested When Mr Brossart

repeatedly asked why he was being arrested officers responded by repeatedly electrocuting

him with a Taser Mr Brossart neither forcibly resisted nor fled This unnecessary brutal

16

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 410201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 43: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

excessive and unconstitutional use of force further compounds the injury reSUlting from the

unlawful arrest

Mr Brossart agrees the reasonableness of a persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usually a question of fact for the jury See eg State v Falconer 2007 ND 89 ~ 16 732

NW2d 70 State v Cox 532 NW2d 384387 (ND 1995) and State v Ritter 472 NW2d

444452 (ND 1991) But determination of the unlawful arrest is a question of law for the

Courts determination Ritter 472 NW2d at 453 (Levine J concurring) Moreover

courts retain the power to act upon evidence of flagrant police misconduct such as

intentional harassment or the use of excessive force Id at 452 (citation omitted) Courts

will remedy an unlawful arrest or detention by dismissal of the charges in instances when

an accused avoids belligerent and forceful reactions to overbearing police conduct Id

(citing City of Bismarck v Schoppert 460 NW2d 808 (ND 1991) In many instances

judicial remedies for unlawful police action remain appropriate Id This is one of those

instances The Court should dismiss the charges

4 The de facto arrest of Jacob Brossart was unlawful

As officers were electrocuting Rodney Brossart who was located in standing

water Jacob Brossart approached to provide assistance to his father Police responded by

taking Jacob into custody handcuffing him and escorting him away from his father even

though Jacobs actions did not threaten provoke harm or interfere Consistent with City

of Devils Lake v Grove 2008 ND 155 755 NW2d 485 the custodial de facto arrest of

Jacob Brossart was unlawful Police were required to utilize the least intrusive means

17

Filed - Clerk Of Dislncl Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson Counly ND

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 44: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

reasonably available rather than resorting to physical force use of handcuffs and

forcibly escorting Jacob Brossart away from his father Id at ~ 20

5 The arrest of Abbey Brossart is embellished and underscores unreasonable law enforcement conduct

After Rodney Brossart was arrested his daughter Abbey Brossart approached Dep

Braathen and inquired why the deputy was hurting her father After receiving a flippant

response from Dep Braathan the reports suggest Abbey pushed or lightly hit Braathans

arm No reasonable personmiddot would claim that physical injury or pain resulted

Notwithstanding Braathen arrested Abbey Brossart claiming she committed felony assault

This embellished charge underscores the patently unreasonable manner in which the State

and Braathen in particular has exaggerated and compounded the injuries inflicted upon the

Brossarts

6 The warrantless entry onto the Brossart property requires suppression of the resulting evidence

Officers claim Alex Thomas and Jacob Brossart committed terrorizing by pointing

firearms at them while they were attempting to serve a search warrant While the

Brossarts adamantly deny the allegations police observations derived from this incident are

inadmissible

There existed no lawful prior Fourth Amendment justification for the officers

presence within the Brossart farmyard Police knew the trespassing cattle were not in the

Brossart yard but were at the missile site located at least one-half mile away from the

Brossart farm In fact the existing warrant specifically described the missile site and had

already been served when officers officiously trespassed onto the Brossart farm The farm

I was conspicuously posted against trespass Rodney and Abbey were in jail There was no

i 18 i

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND I

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 45: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

basis to believe any type of criminal activity was taking place within the farmyardmiddot The

absence of probable cause and prior justification prohibited police entry onto the property

and requires suppression of evidence and observations thereon See~ Texas v Brown

460 US 730 738 and n 4 741-42 (1983) Because police were not lawfully in a position

to observe the claimed illegal activity their observations and the resulting evidence must be

suppressed

7 The warrantless use of unmanned surveillance aircraft and the use of commandos to infIltrate the Brossart ranch were unlawful

After Rodney and Abbey Brossart were arrested and placed in custody police sought

a warrant to obtain the trespassing cattle Police also dispatched unmanned aerial

surveillance to spy on the Brossart family and to collect intelligence data The unmanned

aircraft was dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant The unmanned aircraft was

not visible or detectable by ordinary observation Armed with the intelligence data from the

unmanned arrcraft and a search warrant commando-styled police officers infiltrated the

Brossart ranch searching all buildings tree rows shelter belts vehicles and equipment

These unrestricted tactics were unreasonable

The use of military-like aircraft in domestic law enforcement is a relatively new

concept subject to substantial criticism See Joseph J Vacek Big Brother Will Soon Be

Watching--Or Will He Constitutional Regulatory and Operational Issues Surrounding the

Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Law Enforcement 85 ND L Rev 673 (2010) In

Kyllo v United States 533 US 27 29 (2001) the United States Supreme Court held that

obtaining information by sense enhancing technology not available for general public will be

subject to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures

19

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County NO

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 46: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitutionmade applicable to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article I Section 8 of the North Dakota

Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures State v Wanzek 1999 ND 163 ~

7598 NW2d 811(citing State v Lanctot 1998 ND 216 ~ 5587 NW2d 568) Suppression

of evidence is warranted based on the unreasonable manner method and means employed

by the state Part of the reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment and Article I

Section 8 is the manner method and means used in obtaining evidence These provisions

bar intrusions which are not justified in the circumstances or which are made in an

improper manner Schmerber v California 384 US 757 768 (1966) Stated differently

even in instances in which searches are authorized by a proper search warrant if the warrant

is executed in an unreasonable manner the resulting evidence will be suppressed In

evaluating the manner method and means the Court must consider the totality of the

circumstances In this case as outlined above law enforcement efforts-from beginning to

end-were wholly uncontrolled and unreasonable See Brinegar v United States 338 US

160 18069 SCt 1302 131393 LEd 1879 (1949) (Jackson J dissenting) (Uncontrolled

search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every

arbitrary government)

8 Outrageous police conduct and the combined injury requires dismissal of all charges

Law enforcement induced enticed incited and provoked the Brossarts into acts

which law enforcement now claim constituted one or more offenses Deputy Braathen and

Insp Frederickson created the circumstances they now claim supported arrest ofRodney and

Abbey Brossart In simple terms the Brossarts were the victims of intolerable police

20

Filedmiddot Clerk Of District Court 4102012300 37 PM

Nelson County ND

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 47: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

conduct In State v Kummer 481 NW2d 437 (ND 1992) the North Dakota Supreme

Court addressed the appropriate remedy for intolerable law enforcement conduct

Here police relied upon inapplicable statutes Police unlawfully arrested They

stretched the rules prompted responses and caused the resulting conduct In Kummer the

court stated Subversion of statutes rules or regulations by law enforcement officers in

order to induce a criminal violation cannot be sanctioned Kummer 481 NW2d at 443

(citation omitted) The manufacture or creation of a crime by law enforcement authorities

cannot be tolerated Id at 444 (quoting 1 Working Papers of the National Commission on

Reform ofFederal Criminal Laws Comment on Entrapment Section 702 at p 314 (1970))

A concurring opinion in Kummer makes the point I believe we should confront the

issue directly and declare that as a matter of public policy we will not sustain a conviction

obtained by intolerable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents Kummer 481

NW2d at 445 (VandeWalle J concurring) (citing Hampton v United States 425 US

48496 SCt 164648 LEd2d 113 (1976) and Evans v State 550 P2d 830 (Alaska 1976)

for the proposition that outrageous police conduct may bar conviction as a matter of law)

Whether the governments conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of

law fully reviewable on appeal State v Hoverson 2006 ND 49 7 710 NW2d 890

(citation omitted) The Brossarts respectfully ask this Court to affirmatively answer the

question oflaw at the outset of this case before further damage results

9 Alternatively the Court should suppress all evidence subsequent to the seizure ofRodney Brossart

An invalid arrest or an unlawful detention is ordinarily not grounds for dismissing a

complaint or voiding a subsequent conviction Gerstein v Pugh 420 US 103 (1975) State

21

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 41101201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 48: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

v Biby 336 NW2d 460 462 (ND 1995) State v Mees 272 NW2d 284 287 (ND

1978) State v Hager 271 NW2d 476 480 (ND 1978) As outlined above the Brossarts

argue this is the extraordinary case warranting dismissal of the charges As an alternative

all evidence resulting from the illegal police conduct must be suppressed Although the rule

of exclusion is neither intended nor is it able to cure the invasion of a defendants rights

which he has already suffered the rule of exclusion serves as a judicially created remedy

designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect

Stone v Powell 428 US 465 540 (White 1 dissenting) United States v Calandriib 414

US 338 348 (1974) The constitutional prohibitions against unlawful police conduct

impact us all-the guilty and innocent alike When police willfully disregard the

Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Dakota and when police willfully

disregard the clear mandates of our highest courts the adage that police action was close

enough for government work is simply not enough If remedial dismissal is not granted

the only appropriate remedy is the judicially created remedy of deterrence through exclusion

of evidence including any and all statements and suppression of the resulting evidence The

absence of any remaining evidence is independently sufficient to warrant dismissal of the

present charges

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Brossarts respectfully requests that the Court enter an

Order ofDismissal

22

Filed - Clerk Of District Court 4102012 30037 PM

Nelson County ND

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 49: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

to Dated this ~ ~fApril 2012 ~0_1_2_____--- shyBy ~ ~

Bruce D QUick (03510) Ross Brandborg (06029) Mark A Friese (05646) BRANDBORG amp GAST VOGEL LAW FIRM 35 4th Street North Suite 201 218 NP Avenue Fargo ND 58102 POBox 1389 Telephone 7012370099 Fargo ND 58107-1389 Telephone 7012376983 Facsimile 7012370847 ATTORNEYS FOR ABBY ALEX ATTORNEYS FOR RODNEY JACOB mOMAS and SUSAN BROSSART BROSSART

13663742

23

Filed Clerk Of Dislrict Court 4110201230037 PM

Nelson County ND

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 50: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

FILED In DIstrlet Court

Nelson County NO

IN DISTRICT COURT NELSON COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA APR 2 3 2012

State ofNorth Dakota

Plaintiff

Ruth Stevens Clerk By__----shy

Deputy STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS

COMBINED MOTION TO DISMISS

v

Rodney Brossart

Defendant

File Nos 32-20l1-CR-00049 00071

State of North Dakota

v

Susan Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00074

State ofNorth Dakota

v

Abby Brossart

File Nos 32-2011-CR-00050 00076

State ofNorth Dakota

v

AJex Brossart

File No 32-2011-CR-00046

1

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 51: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

State of North Dakota

v File No 32-20l1-CR-00048

Thomas Brossart

State ofNorth Dakotat

v File No 32-2011-CR-00047

Jacob Brossart

The State of North Dakota replies to the Defendants brief in support of Defendants

combined Motion to Dismiss several criminal charges which have been filed against the Brossart

defendants t as follows As stated by the Defendants in their brief the Brossarts are a close-knit

family that does not seek to socialize with other people This is borne out by the fact that eleven

neighboring landowners have petitioned the Nelson County District Court for and have received

an order to survey disputed property lines between the Petitioners lands and Respondent Rodney

Brossarts land (Civil Case No 32-1O-C-29 Nelson County ND District Court)

The events leading to the arrest of Rodney Brossart began when his neighbor Chris

Anderson began looking for three cow-calf pairs that had wandered from his pasture Mr

Anderson picked up the trail of the cattle on the township road adjoining his property and

followed the tracks of the cattle to a point where what appeared to be tracks from a four-wheeler

ATV and a three-wheeler A TV joined the cattle tracks These tracks went off the road and

continued across the field to a locked and gated abandoned missile site that is rented by Rodney

Brossart Mr Andersons identified the cattle as those that had strayed from his pasture

2

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 52: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

At no time did Mr Brossart or any member of his family notify Mr Anderson that his

stray cattle had wandered onto Brossart land and were locked in the missile site

Mr Anderson made contact with Mr Brossart at the Brossart residence and said he

could get a trailer and get the cattle out of the missile site right away Mr Brossart responded he

could buy the cattle back Not wanting to confront Mr Brossart alone Mr Anderson left the area

and contacted the Nelson County Sheriffs Office

Nelson County Sergeant Eric Braathen and North Dakota Stockmens Association Field

Agent Fred Frederikson then began driving to Mr Brossarts farm to seek a consensual return of

the cattle to Mr Anderson They located Rodney Brossart pumping water across a township road

and Sergeant Braathen introduced Mr Frederikson to Mr Brossart Agent Frederikson said he

understood Mr Brossart had some stray cattle on his farm Mr Brossart said Is that what they

are Mr Frederikson said 1 guess theyre your neighbors cattle Mr Brossart replied Oh

are they I havent had any proof yet Mr Frederikson informed Mr Brossart that he had brand

papers for the cattle that had strayed on Mr Brossarts land and asked to go look at them Mr

Brossart then said If you step foot on that property youre not waJking away Mr Brossart

said he was going to finish what he was doing and Sergeant Braathen said No were going to

do this now Mr Brossart went back to the tractor and Sergeant Braathen told him if he did not

cooperate he would be arrested Mr Brossart said For what Show me the writ Show me the

writ Sergeant Braathen then told Mr Brossart he was under arrest Mr Brossart resisted being

arrested and was then arrested by Sergeant Braathen who used a Taser multiple times on Mr

Brossart when Mr Brossart refused to comply

3

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 53: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

The defendant claims the officers had no basis to arrest Mr Brossart for violating the

livestock estray law Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays arguing that the definition ofestray in

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection controls and applies to Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays

Chapter 36-22 NDCC Estray Inspection was enacted in 1943 and provides for the

establishment of the North Dakota Stockmens Association to assure that cattle will not be sold

at auction in the state of North Dakota without proof of ownership In the Estray Inspection

chapter estray is defined as Any marked or branded cattle horse or mule found at any

livestock market to which a shipper cannot produce title or other satisfactory evidence of

ownership is considered to be an estray (Section 36-22-01 NDCC) (Emphasis added)

Chapter 36-13 NDCC Estrays was enacted initially in 1890 and does not contain a

definition of estray The 1943 definition ofestray in Chapter 36-22 NDCC cannot possibly

apply to the 1890 statute Section 36-13-01 NDCC Estrays provides A person may take

possession ofan estray when it is on property that the person owns or controls provided the

person does not know who owns the estray As soon as practicable the person shall examine the

estray to determine the presence and identity of any brand and any other marks or scars that may

identify the estray The person shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the estray was

found or the chiefbrand inspector Once notified the sheriff or the chief brand inspector shall

record the date and time of the notification and aU information obtained from the person which

may be helpful in determining ownership ofthe estray The chief brand inspector shall direct a

brand inspector to examine the estray for marks and brands

Any person that takes possession ofan estray and willfully fails to comply with the

chapter is guilty ofa c1ass B misdemeanor Section 36-13()8 NDCC

4

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 54: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

In Campbell v Hamilton 172 NW 810 (ND 1919) the North Dakota Supreme Court

defined estray as a wandering animal whose owner is unknown - an animal that has strayed

away and lost itself Under the estray statute a person has no right to impound an animal as an

estray unless it is in truth and in fact an estray and when a person does take up an estray he

must comply strictly with all of the provisions of the statute

As the video clearly shows when Mr Brossart was asked about the cattle by Mr

Frederikson Mr Brossart denied knowing they were his neighbors cattle and refused to allow

Mr Frederikson to view the cattle to confinn brand papers he had on the cattle No notice was

given to the sheriff or chiefbrand inspector that the cattle had been found From the point of

view of the officers Braathen and Frederikson Mr Brossart committed a class B misdemeanor

violation of the estray law in their presence and he was arrested for violating the estray law

The defense claims in its brief that Mr Brossart followed the law on trespass of livestock

when he demanded that Chris Anderson buy his cattle back from Mr Brossart The defense

cannot credibly claim that cattle herded off ofa township road and into a gated and locked

missile site on Brossart-controlled property were trespassing livestock

Mr Brossart failed to follow the law on trespass by demanding payment for the

trespassing cattle The remedy is not that Mr Anderson must purchase the animals back from

Mr Brossart The remedy is that Mr Brossart may ultimately recover from Mr Anderson any

damages caused by the trespassing cattle Section 36-11-1 O( I) NDCC

Mr Brossart cannot use his misinterpretation of the trespass law to avoid following the

statutory requirements of the law on estrays

5

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 55: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

The defense argues that because the cattle were trespassing the theft charge against Mr

Brossart is improvident This case does not involve trespassing livestock It involves livestock

that were not owned by Mr Brossart being herded off a township road and into a fenced-in site

controlled by Mr Brossart The owner of the livestock offered to remove them from the Brossart

property and Mr Brossart said he could buy them from Mr Brossart

Section 121-23-02 NDCC states A person is gui1ty oftheft ifhe 1 Knowingly takes

or exercises unauthorized control over or makes an unauthorized transfer ofan interest in the

property ofanother with intent to deprive the owner thereof Mr Brossart had control of the

cattle and claimed ownership of Mr Andersons property This constitutes an unauthorized

transfer of Mr Andersons interest in the cattle His refusal to return the cattle without payment

ofthe full value of the cattle is a clear indication that Mr Brossart intended to deprive Mr

Anderson ofhis ownership of the cattle

The defense next argues that Mr Brossart was merely exercising his freedom of speech

rights when he told Sergeant Braathen and Mr Frederikson that if they set foot on his property

they would not be walking away and that those words did not convey a threat of harm The

video clearly demonstrates this was not an offhand comment and that the officers took it as a

threat Mr Frederikson told Mr Brossart not to make threats and Mr Brossart yelled that

Sergeant Braathen had to stop making threats

In Siale v Zeno 490 NW2d 707 (ND 1992) the Court at p 710 citing Siale v Hass

268 NW2d 456 stated the determination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a

question of fact and citing Stale v Howe 247 NW2d 647654 (ND 1976) also at p 710

stated

6

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 56: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

No precise words are necessary to convey a threat It may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited [Citations omitted]

Because the detennination of whether particular words constitute a threat is a question of

fact this determination is to be left for the jury

The defense contends excessive force was used by Sergeant Braathen in effecting the

arrest of Rodney Brossart Braathen used a Taser to assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Brossart

The audio portion ofthe video submitted by the defense as an exhibit to their brief clearly

demonstrates that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart refused to cooperate when he was

told he was under arrest Sergeant Braathen will testify that he tased Mr Brossart at this time and

told him to get down He will testify that Mr Brossart advanced on him and was tased again

The testimony will reveal that the Taser was used only after Mr Brossart was warned it would be

used and was used each time he continued to resist In the midst ofresisting arrest Mr Brossart

demanded the officers find his phone and eye glasses He had not yet been cuffed He resisted

being handcuffed and was tased again The only force that was used was that which was

sufficient to effect the arrest and Mr Brossart was warned each time before being tased As the

defense stated in its brief the reasonableness ofa persons response to an unlawful arrest is

usuaJly a question of fact for the jury

The North Dakota Supreme Court visited these issues with Rodney Brossart in State v

Brossart 729 NW2d 137 (ND 2007) In that case Rodney Brossart was convicted in the

Nelson County District Court of preventing arrest or discharge of other duties and he appealed

arguing the Court erred in finding him guilty of the charge and that he had the right to resist

7

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 57: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

arrest under Section 121-05-03(1) NDCC Officer Eric Braathen was also involved in this case

Id At 138

[ 11) When viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the

verdict we conclude substantial evidence supports Brossarts conviction for violating NDCC sect

121-08-02( I) However our inquiry does not end with that conclusion because Brossart also

argues he had the right under NDCC sect 121-05-03(1) to resist being handcuffed

[ 12) Brossart claims he was within his legal rights to resist being handcuffed because as a

matter oflaw the deputies used excessive force to subdue him North Dakota law allows a

person to resist a deputys performance of duty when excessive force is used The statute

provides A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest execution of

process or other performance ofduty by a public servant under color of law but excessive force

may be resisted NDCC sect 121-05-03(1)

[ 13] In Ritter this Court examined the legislative history and the purposes ofNDCC sect

121-05-03(I) and held a defendants forceful resistance to an arrest under color of law is not

legally justified unless excessive force is used by the officers Ritter 472 NW2d 444 We

explained

We believe that individual violence cannot replace the rule oflaw 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 [T]he criminal statutes still recognize justification

defenses as factual remedies for official misconduct These defenses do not depend on judicial

suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges Rather they depend upon full presentation of

8

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 58: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

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

[d at 450-53 (Emphasis added)

[ 14] We held subsequently in DuPaul and Cox the proper remedy for addressing claims of

unlawful police conduct was allowing the defendant to raise the issue to the jury and offer his

resistance as a justification defense to the preventing-arrest charge Siale v DuPaul 509 NW2d

266271 (ND 1993) Cox 532 NW2d at 388 [d at 140 141

Clearly the Court has held the issue of excessive force is for the trier of fact and not a

subject for a pretrial determination

The defense next claims the officers mishandled the removal of Jacob Brossart from the

scene of the arrest of Rodney Brossart Officers testimony will show Rodney Brossart yelled at

Jacob Brossart to go get that and Jacob approached the Brossart pickUp truck at the arrest

scene Inspector Frederikson intervened and prevented his approach to the pickup which

contained two rifles on the front seat Jacob Brossart was then handcuffed and placed in a patrol

vehicle He was not charged with any offense relating to the arrest of Rodney Brossart and the

cuffs were removed after Rodney Brossart was arrested and placed in a patrol vehicle In the

chaotic situation involving the arrest of Rodney Brossart cuffing and sequestering Jacob

Brossart who was coming to aid his father at his fathers demand was the least intrusive means

available to the officers at the time

The defense next claims the arrest ofAbby Brossart is embellished The video exhibit

clearly shows Abby Brossart exited a vehicle with other Brossart family members approached

9

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 59: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Sergeant Braathen and struck his right arm with her left arm The officer will testify that the

blow was of sufficient force to push his arm back and down Whether the officer suffered pain as

a result ofbeing struck on his arm is a question of fact for the jury

The defense next claims the officers entry onto the Brossart farmstead requires

suppression ofresulting evidence Fred Frederikson will testify that at the scene of the arrest of

Rodney Brossart Thomas Brossart said his Dad (Rodney) demanded a search warrant before

Fred Frederikson could view the cattle locked up on Brossart-controlled land Frederikson then

told Thomas Brossart he would get a search warrant that afternoon

That afternoon Frederikson returned with a search warrant and he and Nelson County

Deputy Sheriff Keith Olson met and parked near the missile site containing the cattle Thomas

Brossart and Alex Brossart then arrived in a pickup and said This is private land I do not agree

to this sale Thomas had a rifle in an open case next to him Alex Brossart said he had read on

the internet that the Brossarts were entitled to $15000 for each trespassing animal Frederikson

told Alex and Thomas he was in possession of a search warrant and they drove away

Nelson County SheriffKeUy Janke and Sergeant Braathen then arrived at Frederiksons

location Frederikson described the encounter with Thomas and Alex Brossart and all of the

officers went to the Brossart farmstead where Sheriff Janke intended to serve the search warrant

and to be in a position to prevent the three sons from interfering with the retrieval of the cattle

Sheriff Janke and Sergeant Braathen approached the Brossart residence on foot and were

confronted by Alex Brossart Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart who rushed at them and

pointed firearms at them The officers retreated to a position of safety and a standoff ensued

10

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 60: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Under Rule 41(d) NDRCrimP an officer executing a search warrant must prepare and

verify an inventory ofany property seized in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the

person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken Ifeither one is not present

the officer must prepare and verify the inventory in front of at least one other credible person An

officer taking property under the warrant must (A) give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for

the property taken to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken or

(B) leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place from which the officer took the

property NDRCrimP 41(d)(2)

The officers had received demands from the Brossarts for a search warrant and went to

the farmstead to show the Brossarts they had a search warrant and to serve it They would then

have at least one adult member of the family present at the inventory and could then give a copy

of the search warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom the property

was taken The officers also had the option of leaving a copy of the warrant and receipt at the

place from which the officer took the property In this case they exercised the option of

attempting to directly present the warrant to the three Brossart adult sons only to be confronted

by Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart threatening them with firearms

The Defendants claim the Brossart premises were posted against trespass that the

officers had no right to be on the premises and that evidence of the Brossarts confrontation of

the officers with firearms must be suppressed

Even asswning proper posting against trespass the North Dakota trespass statute Section

121-22-03(5) NDCC provides This section does not apply to a peace officer in the course of

discharging the peace officers official duties

11

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 61: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Defendants complain of the use of unmanned surveillance aircraft claiming some

unspecified hann resulted Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time

Rodney Brossart is alleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged violation of

the estray law resisting arrest criminal mischief theft ofproperty and terrorizing

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Abby Brossart is

alleged to have committed simple assault nor prior to or at the time Alex Brossart Thomas

Brossart and Jacob Brossart are alleged to have committed the offenses of terrorizing by

pointing fireanns at law enforcement officers

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft had no bearing on the issuance and execution

of a June 24 2011 search warrant for the fireanns alleged to have been used by Alex Brossart

Thomas Brossart and Jacob Brossart on the terrorizing charges This warrant allowed for the

search ofoutbuildings as well as the residence and was executed by multiple law enforcement

agencies

The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were

not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed There is

furthermore no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes

In summary the issues raised by the defense are all issues of fact to be determined by a

jury not subject to dismissal prior to being heard by a fact finder Whether arresting officers had

reasonable grounds to arrest Rodney Brossart for violating the estray law for his actions in their

presence on Rodney Brossarts resisting arrest charge whether excessive force was used in

effecting his arrest whether Rodney Brossart was justified in resisting arrest whether Rodney

12

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13

Page 62: 92426499 State of North Dakota vs Rodney Brossart

Brossart committed theft of the cattle whether which is not addressed in the Defendants brief

Rodney Brossart committed criminal mischief in the patrol vehicle whether Abby Brossarts

physical contact with the officer caused physical pain to the officer whether which is not

addressed in the brief Susan Brossart made statements that hindered law officers in an

investigation and whether Thomas Brossart Alex Brossart and Jacob Brossart committed the

offenses of terrorizing For all of these reasons the State requests the Defendants Motion for

Dismissal be denied in its entirety

Dated this April 22 2012

DougI G Mbeck0325) == Nelson County States Attorney PO Box 533 Lakota ND 58344 Telephone 701-247-2138 Attorney for the Plaintiff

13