State v. Powley, 943 N.W.2d 766

Powley was arrested for aggravated assault on July 17, 2017 while on parole; his parole conditions consented to warrantless searches of his person, residence, vehicles, or property by a parole/probation officer.
Officers seized Powley’s cell phone at the detention center the day after arrest; after his transfer to the state penitentiary, detectives conducted a warrantless search of the phone on July 26, 2017 under the parole search condition and discovered videos prompting gross sexual imposition charges.
Powley moved to suppress the phone evidence, arguing the search was unreasonable because he was in custody and parole terms were suspended upon incarceration under N.D.C.C. § 12-59-15(2).
The district court denied suppression, finding Powley’s parole conditions remained in effect until his parole was formally revoked on August 9, 2017; the court relied on statutory interpretation and precedent holding conditions can apply during incarceration.
On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed: it declined to consider Powley’s unpreserved argument that detectives (rather than parole officers) lacked authority to search, held parole conditions continue during incarceration, and found detectives had reasonable suspicion to search the phone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do parole search conditions remain in effect while the parolee is incarcerated?	Parole conditions continue during incarceration and remain enforceable until revoked.	Parole terms are suspended upon incarceration under § 12-59-15(2).	Conditions continue to apply while incarcerated until parole is revoked.
Was the warrantless search of Powley’s phone invalid because detectives (not parole officers) conducted it?	State: search valid under parole condition regardless of which officers conducted it.	Powley: search invalid because condition authorized searches only by parole/probation officers.	Issue not preserved on appeal; court declined to consider it.
Did the search violate the Fourth Amendment as a suspicionless search of an incarcerated parolee?	State: detectives had reasonable suspicion in the aggravated-assault investigation to search the phone.	Powley: search was suspicionless and unreasonable because he was in custody and a parolee.	Search was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances; no Fourth Amendment violation; suppression denied.
Is an argument not raised in the district court cognizable on appeal?	State: unpreserved issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.	Powley: raised the detectives-vs-parole-officer argument on appeal.	Appellate court refused to consider the new argument as forfeited.

State v. White, 890 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 2017) (supervised probation cell-phone search; reasonable-suspicion standard applied)
State v. Ballard, 874 N.W.2d 61 (N.D. 2016) (discusses continuum of punishments and expectations of privacy; suspicionless searches of unsupervised probationers unreasonable)
State v. Stenhoff, 925 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 2019) (probation conditions may continue to apply during incarceration)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (parolees have severely diminished privacy interests; totality-of-circumstances review)
Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (reasonable suspicion suffices to search a probationer subject to a search condition)
State v. Maurstad, 647 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 2002) (probationary searches based on reasonable suspicion are constitutional)