State v. Lietzau, 439 P.3d 839

Lietzau was on felony probation with written conditions allowing warrantless "search and seizure of person and property" by probation officers and requiring truthful cooperation.
A mother reported a suspected inappropriate relationship between Lietzau and her 13‑year‑old daughter; probation surveillance arrested Lietzau for probation violations and, en route to jail, a surveillance officer examined his cell phone and saw texts with the minor.
Probation shared its findings with Tucson PD; a detective obtained a warrant and discovered incriminating photos and messages. Lietzau was indicted for sexual conduct with a minor.
Lietzau moved to suppress the phone evidence, arguing Riley requires a warrant for cell‑phone searches incident to arrest; the State argued the probation search exception and Adair permitted the warrantless search.
The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding the phone search arbitrary and not related to Lietzau’s administrative probation violations; the State appealed and the appellate court reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lietzau)	Held
Whether the probationary warrantless search of a cell phone was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment	Search was authorized by valid probation condition and reasonable under Adair (totality of circumstances)	Riley protects cell‑phone data and a warrant is required; probation terms did not clearly allow searching phone/data	The search was reasonable under Adair given diminished privacy, probation terms, and well‑grounded suspicion; suppression reversed
Whether the trial court erred by refusing the State’s request to present probation officer testimony at the suppression hearing	Trial court abused discretion in denying testimony that would show officers’ knowledge and purpose	Trial court permitted reliance on submitted materials and declined testimony	Appellate decision resolved case on the legality of the search and did not reach error claim about excluding the witness

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant generally required to search cell‑phone data)
State v. Adair, 241 Ariz. 58 (Ariz. 2016) (probationary warrantless searches are lawful if reasonable under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) (suspicionless probationary cell‑phone search problematic where terms did not clearly encompass phones)
Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probationers have diminished privacy; searches authorized by probation conditions can be upheld)
Montgomery, 115 Ariz. 583 (probationers have reduced expectations of privacy)