State v. Cochran, 963 N.W.2d 238

Cochran lived in one half of a duplex with her son (a supervised probationer) and another occupant; the son’s probation terms allowed warrantless probationary searches of the residence.
On May 7, 2020 officers conducted a probationary search; after clearing the residence they searched a room later identified as Cochran’s bedroom while Cochran remained in the living room.
Officers testified the room looked like a storage room, the bedroom door had no lock or was open, and anyone living there would have access; they found drugs, paraphernalia, Cochran’s purse and ID in the room.
Cochran testified she rented the room from her son, used it as her bedroom, had a deadbolt and the only key, and had previously kept the door locked during a prior probation visit.
The district court suppressed the evidence, concluding the room was not a common area subject to the probationary search and Cochran did not forfeit suppression by failing to object; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bedroom was a common area subject to a probationary, warrantless search	Room was effectively a common area/storage area accessible to others and within probationer’s common authority	Room was Cochran’s private bedroom; she paid rent, controlled locks, and had a reasonable expectation of privacy	Room was not a common area; Cochran had a reasonable expectation of privacy, so common-area exception did not apply
Whether Cochran’s failure to object during the search forfeited suppression	Failure to object during the search bars later suppression (co-occupant who does not object loses suppression remedy)	No forfeiture: suppression is available where a private room—not a common area—is searched; objection inapposite to private-space protection	No forfeiture; West and Hurt distinguishable because those involved common areas/unclaimed property; Cochran need not have objected to protect a private room
Whether the district court erred by requiring the State to show reason for the probationary search	State argued Cochran did not challenge the underlying justification, so the court should not fault State for lack of evidence on that point	Cochran argued the dispositive issue was whether the room was a common area, not the reason for the probationary visit	Any extraneous comment about lack of reasonable suspicion did not affect outcome; court properly focused on common-area question and suppression stands

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (common authority rests on mutual use and joint access, permitting third-party consent)
State v. West, 941 N.W.2d 533 (N.D. 2020) (co-occupant who does not object to a probationary search of common areas cannot later seek suppression)
State v. Krous, 681 N.W.2d 822 (N.D. 2004) (probation search condition can constitute consent for reasonable warrantless searches of probationer’s residence)
State v. Adams, 788 N.W.2d 619 (N.D. 2010) (discussing areas subject to probationer’s common authority and access)
State v. Hurt, 743 N.W.2d 102 (N.D. 2007) (housemate of probationer forfeited suppression remedy by failing to object to probationary search of common areas)
State v. Swenningson, 297 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 1980) (burden on party alleging violation to present specific evidence of taint)
State v. Cook, 910 N.W.2d 179 (N.D. 2018) (appellate courts will not set aside a decision if the result is correct under proper legal reasoning)