Judge Stacy Louser ordered on Friday that all the evidence — including of a body discovered in the trunk of a car owned by murder and rape defendant Shawnee Lynn Krall, 29, of Minot — be suppressed because police didn’t have a warrant when they searched the vehicle.

Krall is charged with Class AA felony murder and Class AA felony gross sexual imposition in the Dec. 20, 2020, death of his roommate, Alice Queirolo, 29, at a Minot residence.

According to court documents and testimony at a court hearing in November, police had obtained permission from Krall’s probation officer to search Krall’s residence, a vehicle and his cell phone. Through the course of the investigation, they learned that Krall had left another vehicle on property where a third party resided. On Dec. 21, 2020, police then asked for a search warrant to search that vehicle, but the probation officer and the Ward County State’s Attorney’s Office turned them down and said they didn’t have enough evidence to obtain a search warrant. The probation officer also turned the police officers down when they asked for permission to tow the vehicle.

At the hearing in November 2021, the third party, Zach Barnett, who only knew Krall casually, testified that he was unnerved when he heard there was a missing person investigation. Barnett said he asked Minot police to remove Krall’s vehicle from his residence after he saw an officer open the driver’s side door on Krall’s vehicle and police gathering around the vehicle.

Former Minot Police Detective Aaron Bowles, who has since taken a job in another state, testified at the November hearing that Barnett was mistaken about the timing and Barnett actually asked them to have Krall’s vehicle towed away from the Barnett property prior to the point when Minot Police Lt. Shawn Wegner used a “slim jim” to access the vehicle and discovered the deceased woman in the trunk.

Louser wrote in her order that Barnett’s account of events was consistent and credible.

“The Court must conclude the motivation behind law enforcement’s offer to tow the vehicle was not premised on ‘reasonable police regulations relating to inventory proceedings administered in good faith’ nor as routine caretaking procedure,” wrote Louser in her order suppressing the evidence. “Rather, the motivation for offering to tow the vehicle was for investigatory purposes, rendering the warrantless search of the Ford 500 impermissible under the inventory/impound search warrant exception.”

The State also had argued that it should be able to use the evidence because it would have been found anyway. Police had said they were in an active search for a medically vulnerable missing person at the time — Queirolo suffered from a brain tumor — which meant there were “exigent circumstances” for the search.

Louser ruled against them on that point as well. She also noted that the State did not present any evidence that the police considered alternatives to “violating Krall’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Louser suggested that the police could have stationed an officer at the suspect vehicle until Krall or his probation officer could be contacted.

“Opening and searching the Ford 500 without a warrant, without Krall’s consent and without exploring other options to ensure protection of Krall’s Fourth Amendment rights is exactly what the North Dakota Supreme Court has routinely cautioned against,” wrote Louser. “Law enforcement accelerated the discovery of evidence, which negates application of inevitable discovery.”

Louser wrote that the State also had not proved that the police would have discovered the evidence in the car anyway.

“One can certainly appreciate that law enforcement was invested in locating (the victim), a missing and medically vulnerable adult,” wrote Louser. “However, to deny Krall’s Motion to suppress, the Court would have to ignore critical testimony — that a search of the Ford 500 was denied by Krall’s probation officer, that a request to tow the Ford 500 was denied by Krall’s probation officer, that a request for a search warrant to search the Ford 500 was denied by the Ward County State’s Attorney’s office, that Krall had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Ford 500, and the testimony of two law enforcement officers who confirmed their intentions to leave the Barnett property, thereby abandoning any legitimate claim of exigent circumstances or the emergency exception. Moreover, the State provided nothing more than speculative, conclusory statements as to the evidence that might have been found to satisfy proper application of the inventory exception. Because the State has failed to meet its burden in each of the forwarded search warrant exceptions, Krall’s Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained in the warrantless search of the Ford 500 is granted.”

Krall has been held in custody since December 2020.

The next hearing in his case is a pre-trial conference scheduled for April 27.