We give deference to the district court's findings of fact when reviewing a motion to suppress evidence. City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 7, 580 N.W.2d 580; State v. Kitchen, 1997 ND 241, ¶ 11, 572 N.W.2d 106. The district court is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence, and conflicts are resolved in favor of affirmance.

Wanzek, 1999 ND 163, ¶ 7, 598 N.W.2d 811. The burden is on the government to show a warrantless search is within an exception to the warrant requirement. City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 8, 580 N.W.2d 580 (citing State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16, 566 N.W.2d 410). Consent is one of the exceptions.Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 9, 592 N.W.2d 579; Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 9, 580 N.W.2d 580 (citing Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16, 566 N.W.2d 410). [¶ 10] Although the trial court found Officer Nagel did not remain at the door of the apartment but rather walked into the apartment when the door was opened, the State argues he had the implicit consent to do so from the young woman who opened the door.

[¶12] The right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 8, 580 N.W.2d 580. Warrantless searches and seizures inside a residence are presumptively unreasonable. Id.

U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures in their homes. City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 8, 580 N.W.2d 580. Although warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances.

State v. Bitz, 2008 ND 202, ¶ 7, 757 N.W.2d 565 (citing State v. Sabo, 2007 ND 193, ¶ 18, 742 N.W.2d 812). Like a jury, the district court is the finder of fact and is in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence. See City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 7, 580 N.W.2d 580. The district court was not obligated to believe testimony about either the condition of the bike or when the drinking or driving occurred. Testimony at trial from the defendant, his friends and law enforcement provided evidence Hennings was operating the dirt-bike while under the influence of alcohol.

[¶ 10] Exigent circumstances are “an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestallthe imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15, 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10, 580 N.W.2d 580). [¶ 11] In Missouri v. McNeely, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558–59, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (citations omitted), the United States Supreme Court discussed exigent circumstances in the context of a warrantless blood test and an argument that the natural dissipation of alcohol in a driver's bloodstream, by itself, satisfied the requirements for exigent circumstances:

No. WD–10–027, 2011 WL 1167181, at *3 (Ohio App. March 31, 2011) (holding that the warrantless search of the fraternity house was unlawful); see also State v. Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, 23 Ohio St.3d 141, 491 N.E.2d 1129 (1986). Other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. E.g., City of Fargo v. Lee, 580 N.W.2d 580 (N.D.1998) ; Idol v. State, 233 Ind. 307, 119 N.E.2d 428 (1954) ; State v. Houvener, 145 Wash.App. 408, 186 P.3d 370 (2008).The Commonwealth provides no contrary authority.

This record does not establish the immediate incriminating character of the seized evidence, and the State has cited no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless seizure of the package at We Ship. In DeCoteau, 1999 ND 77, ¶ 15, 592 N.W.2d 579 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 10, 580 N.W.2d 580), we said “exigent circumstances ‘has been defined as an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.’ ” Here Agent Miller testified the officers “could have applied for a warrant, ... but ... didn't.”

State v. Doohen, 2006 ND 239, ¶ 8, 724 N.W.2d 158. [¶ 6] The right to be secure in one's home from unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution. Warrantless searches and seizures inside a residence are presumptively unreasonable. City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶ 8, 580 N.W.2d 580. The government bears the burden of showing the warrantless search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Id.

Exigent circumstances may make warrantless searches reasonable. Hoover v. Director, N.D. Dep't of Tramp., 2008 ND 87, ¶ 15, 748 N.W.2d 730 (citing City of Fargo v. Lee, 1998 ND 126, ¶¶ 9-10, 580 N.W.2d 580). Exigent circumstances exist in "an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence."