State v. Black, 960 N.W.2d 820

Background

June 3, 2015: Deputies responded to an on-site noise complaint that a man in an apartment was yelling, throwing objects, and threatening to kill people inside. The complaining neighbor was present and pointed out the apartment.
Deputies knocked and identified themselves three times; Black cracked the door, wearing only underwear, appeared intoxicated and upset, refused to cooperate, and repeatedly tried to close the door; deputies put a foot in the doorway to prevent closure.
After approximately five minutes Black opened the door further and deputies entered to conduct a safety sweep. During the entry they observed a computer monitor displaying an image they believed showed a prepubescent female in a wet shirt exposing nipples/areolas and browser tabs and site indicators suggesting juvenile sexual content.
Deputies obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit describing the observed image and website indicators; the warrant was executed and Black was charged with ten class C felonies for possession of certain prohibited materials.
Black moved to suppress evidence from (1) the warrantless entry/search (claimed no exigent circumstances) and (2) the search warrant (claimed lack of probable cause and misleading affidavit). The district court denied both motions; Black entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances	Deputies had reasonable grounds to believe an emergency existed (neighbor on scene, loud/agitated noises, threats, occupant intoxicated/uncooperative); entry was for a safety sweep, not to seize evidence	Black argued there was no actual or reasonable belief of an emergency, deputies delayed and did not use immediate force, and their primary motive was to arrest/seize evidence	Court held exigent-circumstances exception applied: objective facts supported reasonable belief of emergency, search not primarily for evidence, and nexus to the apartment existed; suppression denied
Whether subsequent pre-warrant reentries were constitutional	State did not squarely address on appeal	Black raised for first time on appeal that deputies reentered before warrant	Court declined to consider because issue was not raised below
Whether affidavit provided probable cause for a search warrant	Affidavit described an image of a prepubescent female exposing areolas/nipples, site URL and tags suggested juvenile sexual content, and multiple "Pic#" tabs indicated more images	Black argued the image was not clearly child pornography and the affidavit omitted/contextual facts (e.g., beach, other people) that would undercut probable cause	Court held the magistrate had a substantial basis to find a fair probability contraband would be found; probable cause upheld
Whether affidavit contained false or misleading statements requiring a Franks hearing	State maintained affidavit was truthful and any inexactitudes were not knowingly/recklessly false or necessary to probable cause	Black argued the affidavit mischaracterized the subject as "prepubescent," gave an inconsistent age range, and omitted context that would negate sexual conduct	Court held Black failed to make the required substantial preliminary showing that statements were knowingly/recklessly false or that alleged falsehoods were necessary to the probable-cause finding

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morin, 815 N.W.2d 229 (discusses standard of review for motions to suppress and deference to district court findings)
City of Fargo v. Lee, 580 N.W.2d 580 (warrantless searches of a residence are presumptively unreasonable)
State v. DeCoteau, 592 N.W.2d 579 (defines exigent/emergency circumstances exception)
State v. Nelson, 691 N.W.2d 218 (sets three requirements for emergency exception to warrant requirement)
State v. Ebel, 723 N.W.2d 375 (deference to magistrate on probable cause; totality-of-circumstances test)
State v. Rogahn, 879 N.W.2d 454 (applies Franks standard in North Dakota)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (affidavit must be free of false statements knowingly or recklessly made; Franks framework)