State v. Ballard
2016 ND 8
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Jeremy Ballard pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drug offenses and was placed on two years of unsupervised probation with conditions requiring warrantless searches of his person, place, and vehicle and random drug testing.
- A deputy stopped Ballard’s car solely to perform a probationary search; the officer admitted he had no reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop.
- After a pat-down produced no contraband, the deputy entered Ballard’s residence (owned by a third party), searched Ballard’s bedroom without consent or a warrant, and found methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
- Ballard moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the suspicionless probationary search of his home violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied suppression and Ballard conditionally pled guilty reserving appeal of that denial.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding a suspicionless search of an unsupervised probationer’s residence was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and remanded to permit withdrawal of Ballard’s plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a suspicionless, warrantless probationary search of an unsupervised probationer’s home is constitutional | State: probation conditions authorize searches and such searches are reasonable if performed properly | Ballard: suspicionless search of his residence violated Fourth Amendment; unsupervised status gives greater privacy | Held: Unreasonable. Suspicionless search of unsupervised probationer’s home violated Fourth Amendment; suppression required |
| Whether Knights/Samson require traditional Fourth Amendment balancing (and reasonable suspicion for probation searches) | State: precedent (Perbix/Maurstad) permits searches so long as reasonable; individualized suspicion need not be required | Ballard: Knights and Samson mandate traditional balancing that disfavors suspicionless probation-home searches, especially for unsupervised probationers | Held: Court applies Knights/Samson balancing and concludes Samson does not extend to unsupervised probationers; suspicionless home search unconstitutional |
| Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the search/stop | State: facts (drug history, association with another probationer) create reasonable suspicion | Ballard: officer conceded no reasonable suspicion; stop/search was solely for probation clause | Held: Court relies on officer’s concession of no reasonable suspicion and finds no lawful basis for the home entry; evidence suppressed |
| Remedy after improper suppression denial | State: affirm conviction / deny relief | Ballard: reverse denial and allow withdrawal of conditional guilty plea | Held: Reversed and remanded to permit Ballard to withdraw plea and suppress evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (ordinary Fourth Amendment balancing; held reasonable suspicion suffices for probationer home search)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolee suspicionless searches held reasonable under totality balancing)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (upheld probation officer warrantless search under state regulation requiring reasonable grounds; special-needs reasoning)
- State v. Maurstad, 647 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 2002) (applied Knights and held reasonable suspicion supports probationary searches; overruled Perbix’s focus on official purpose)
- State v. Perbix, 331 N.W.2d 14 (N.D. 1983) (prior N.D. test upholding warrantless probation searches if related to rehabilitation, not a subterfuge, and performed reasonably)
- State v. Schlosser, 202 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 1972) (early North Dakota precedent concluding probation status affects Fourth Amendment rights)
- State v. Smith, 589 N.W.2d 546 (N.D. 1999) (upheld probationary searches under Perbix; declined to require reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Gonzalez, 862 N.W.2d 535 (N.D. 2015) (applied Maurstad/Knights; upheld probation search supported by reasonable suspicion)