The tip line is anonymous and will be administered and responded to by local law enforcement. The affidavit in support of the warrant stated that the officer believed there was probable cause that Poitra was responsible in the gross sexual imposition because he "matches the general age group of the suspect, based on the fact that he was at the residence where the original incident occurred and based on the fact that he refused to voluntarily provide a DNA sample." A magistrate found probable cause existed and issued the search warrant. II[¶12] Poitra argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress DNA evidence because the affidavit for the search warrant contained false statements or omitted information and because he had a right to have a parent or counsel present before the warrant was executed.[¶13] A district court's decision to deny a motion to suppress "'will not be reversed [on appeal] if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the district court's findings, and . He also claims information in the affidavit was "bare bones" information and was not sufficient to support finding probable cause.[¶15] The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and require warrants be issued only upon probable cause. evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place [to be searched]." "This does not mean 'truthful' in the sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant's own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. In the affidavit, Shaw stated that law enforcement had recovered a white baseball cap with a foot emblem at the crime scene and that another witness described Poitra as a younger man wearing a white baseball cap with a foot emblem.[¶21] Considering the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause for the search warrant and including the omitted information would not have defeated a determination of probable cause. We conclude the district court did not err in determining Poitra did not establish law enforcement intentionally or recklessly included a false statement or omitted material facts in its affidavit for the search warrant. He testified that he did not tell anyone his correct date of birth until he was in court on June 18, 2008.
Kimberlee Jo Hegvik (argued), and Leah Jo Viste (on brief), Assistant State's Attorneys, P. They informed Poitra that a sexual assault had occurred on June 2, 2008, and they asked him to provide a DNA sample. The court denied Poitra's motion to suppress the DNA evidence and the identification evidence obtained through photographs.[¶11] After trial in July 2009, a jury found Poitra guilty of aggravated assault and gross sexual imposition. Poitra was at the residence and was taken into custody on a charge of minor in consumption of alcohol. Shaw also talked to another individual who was with Doe on the night of the incident and she said a male named Josh was wearing a white hat with a foot emblem.[¶4] On June 15, 2008, law enforcement officers were investigating an unrelated matter at the residence where the incident with Doe occurred. The change clarified when a juvenile has a right to counsel and made the statute consistent with constitutional law, limiting the right. W.2d 478 (1995 amendment limited a juvenile's right to counsel under N. § 27-20-53(6).[¶31] However, the district court found and the evidence supports the court's finding that law enforcement did not know Poitra was a juvenile until after he was photographed and after the photograph was used in the lineup. We conclude the district court did not err in denying Poitra's motion to suppress the photograph and identification resulting from the use of the photograph in the lineup. However, without deciding whether or not use of the photograph was lawful, Poitra is estopped from challenging the conduct because he told the officers he was eighteen and refused to give his correct date of birth and the officers reasonably believed Poitra was an adult. Doe told the officers where the incident occurred, and the officers found a pair of women's underwear and a white baseball cap at the location.[¶3] Fargo Police Detective James Shaw spoke to Doe on June 3, 2008, and she told him that her attacker's name was Josh or Justin, that he wore a white baseball cap with a footprint or bear claw and that he had a distinctive scar on his forehead. An attorney is unlikely to advise a juvenile to refuse to submit to the search, and an attorney can do little at that time to further the juvenile's right to a fair trial. 2004) (evidence would be collected even if defendant spoke to attorney because it is unlikely an attorney would advise a defendant to defy a warrant and refuse to submit to the search); , 11 So.3d 866, 901 (Ala.