Daniel Breijo

The Surrey man charged in the Christmas Eve 2023 shooting death of Nicholas Van Pelt has filed a motion to seek a new date for his March jury trial, due to a number of pending and unresolved questions before the court.

Daniel Brejio’s attorney Jessey Walstad identified four undecided issues in his motion filed in North Central District Court, including a motion from the defense seeking to compel more extensive phone records from Van Pelt and the surviving female victim identified in court records as J.B.; a motion to suppress Breijo’s blood alcohol evidence and expert testimony filed by the state; and a sweeping motion from Breijo seeking to suppress a great deal of the evidence drawn from allegedly faulty executed search warrants.

One critical quagmire Walstad highlighted surrounds a request by BEK Communications for a stay from District Court Judge Daniel El-Dweek’s order compelling the broadcaster to provide un-aired interview footage with J.B. from a documentary series. BEK has filed a petition for a supervisory writ from the North Dakota Supreme Court to decide the issue, challenging El-Dweek’s ruling that the possibility of a violation of Breijo’s constitutional rights and justice outweighed First Amendment and journalism shield concerns.

Walstad wrote that should the requested evidence from BEK and other sources be provided, the parties will require additional time for them and their experts to review the footage and requested records.

Most tellingly, Walstad concluded opining Breijo’s case has attracted significant media attention, likely requiring jury questionnaires to assist in jury selection, which he believes will not be able to be accomplished prior to trial.

Special Ward County State’s Attorney Amanda Engelstad responded with a motion requesting a shortening of the response period to Feb. 23, saying the full allotted days would not be required.

Breijo’s trial is currently scheduled for 10 days, commencing with jury selection on March 16.

Motion to suppress

Engelstad also filed a motion and brief in support of denial of the defense’s motion to suppress allegedly mishandled or compromised evidence in the state’s case, including the alleged murder weapon.

Engelstad argued Breijo did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Van Pelt’s residence, that officers had good cause to enter the residence after responding to reports of gunshots from the apartment, and that the surviving victim gave implied consent for them to enter.

In response to Breijo’s allegation that Minot police unlawfully executed a daytime warrant at night, Engelstad argued a good faith exception applied as the affidavit was factual, the judge acted in a neutral and detached manner, the warrant had sufficient probable cause to issue, and officers had no reason not to rely on it. Engelstad argued the same for a secondary warrant sought, issued and executed after large amounts of marijuana were located in Van Pelt’s apartment later that morning on Dec. 25, 2023.

Engelstad pushed back against the suppression of the firearm evidence, which according to Breijo’s filing was allegedly seized by an officer without a warrant, using a bare hand and placed in the waistband of their pants until returning to the Minot Police Department.

Engelstad argued law enforcement officers may seize contraband or evidence of a crime that is in plain view during a warrantless search, and Breijo’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

Ultimately, Engelstad defended the arrest of Breijo at the scene, noting he allegedly was the only individual in the apartment unharmed, was in close proximity to a firearm and was identified as the shooter by J.B. Engelstad concluded that even if the Court finds any of the items or evidence were seized illegally, the inevitable discovery doctrine applies and should prevent suppression.