STATE v. HARRIS (2023)

[¶1] Lawrence Alexander Harris appeals from a criminal judgment and a district court order denying his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Harris argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger because the officers did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct the stop. We conclude the district court did not err in denying Harris’ motion to suppress because there was reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

[¶2] While not argued in the district court, Harris also argues on appeal there was no reasonable and articulable basis to detain him following the stop of the vehicle. We decline to address this argument. State v. Dockter, 2019 ND 203, ¶ 8, 932 N.W.2d 98 (issues not raised or considered in the district court will not be addressed on appeal). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr