State v. Gonzalez
2015 ND 106
N.D.2015Background
- In 2004 Gonzalez was convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition and placed on five years supervised probation with conditions including submission of his person, vehicle, or residence to warrantless searches and a ban on contact with minor females and possession of sexually stimulating materials.
- In December 2010 law enforcement, acting on an investigation alleging contact with a juvenile, searched Gonzalez’s residence and vehicle and found two smartphones, which were searched on scene.
- Evidence from the phones led to a petition to revoke probation; the district court revoked probation and sentenced Gonzalez to imprisonment.
- Gonzalez sought post-conviction relief and moved to suppress evidence from the phone search, arguing the warrantless cell‑phone search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied suppression; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding the search was a valid probationary search supported by reasonable suspicion and not foreclosed by Riley v. California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of Gonzalez’s cell phones was authorized by the probation condition/statute | The State: probation condition and statute authorize warrantless searches of person/place/vehicle, which includes items found therein | Gonzalez: statute and conditions don’t expressly authorize searching/seizing personal effects like cell phones | Held: Search fell within probation search condition (phones were in residence/vehicle) and statute authorized the condition |
| Whether Riley requires a warrant for probationary cell‑phone searches | The State: Riley addressed search‑incident‑to‑arrest and does not eliminate other exceptions, including probationary searches | Gonzalez: Riley recognized heightened privacy interests in cell phones and generally requires a warrant | Held: Riley does not apply to probationary searches; Knights and probation rationale differ from search‑incident‑to‑arrest |
| Whether reasonable suspicion supported the probationary search | The State: officer received police information of investigation into Gonzalez’s contact with a juvenile, supplying reasonable suspicion to search for evidence | Gonzalez: challenges sufficiency/scope of suspicion | Held: Under the totality of circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the probationary search |
| Whether seizure and subsequent forensic download of phones exceeded scope of the probationary search | The State: officer discovered incriminating material on scene, seized phones, and later forensic‑downloaded them while in police custody | Gonzalez: argues authority ended once phones were removed from residence/vehicle and further searches required a warrant | Held: Once phones were lawfully seized and searched at the residence, subsequent forensic examination while in police custody did not violate the Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (probationers may be subject to reasonable search conditions that reduce privacy expectations)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (search‑incident‑to‑arrest rule does not permit warrantless searches of digital cell‑phone data)
- State v. Adams, 788 N.W.2d 619 (N.D. 2010) (standard for reviewing probationary search reasonableness)
- State v. Maurstad, 647 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 2002) (probationary search exception and reasonable‑suspicion requirement)
- United States v. Yuknavich, 419 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2005) (search of computer within residence permitted under probation condition)
- United States v. Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1983) (once lawfully seized and in police possession, subsequent searches of an item may be conducted without a new warrant)