State v. Rai, 924 N.W.2d 410

In Sept. 2017 Fargo police ran an undercover online sting post describing an 18‑year‑old; after texts revealed the purported girl was 14, two men agreed to meet; Rai was arrested at the hotel when he arrived.
Officers seized Rai’s phone, placed it in airplane mode, interrogated him for ~40 minutes in a hotel room without an interpreter, and read text messages during the interview.
The State introduced the text conversation between Rai and the undercover officer (messages were obtained from the undercover officer’s phone) and other officer testimony at trial.
Rai moved to suppress the phone messages and argued his Miranda rights were not validly waived; the district court denied suppression and found the waiver valid.
Rai moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) at the close of the State’s case; the court denied the motion, the jury rejected entrapment and convicted Rai of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity.
Rai appealed, challenging (1) Fourth Amendment search/seizure, (2) Fifth and Sixth Amendment Miranda/interpreter issues, (3) sufficiency of the evidence, and (4) whether entrapment was proven.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Suppression / Fourth Amendment	Messages were lawfully discovered; texts were from undercover officer’s phone	Officer searched Rai’s phone (airplane mode) and evidence should be suppressed	Evidence lawfully obtained from undercover officer’s phone; suppression denied
2. Miranda waiver / need for interpreter	Rai knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently waived Miranda	Rai lacked sufficient English; needed an interpreter and did not validly waive rights	Totality of circumstances show valid waiver; Miranda warnings understood and waiver was voluntary
3. Sufficiency of evidence (Rule 29)	Texts and officer testimony support elements of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity	Evidence insufficient to allow reasonable inference of guilt	Viewing evidence in favor of verdict, sufficient evidence existed; Rule 29 denied properly
4. Entrapment affirmative defense	Undercover ad and solicitations induced Rai; entrapment proven by preponderance	Undercover conduct merely provided opportunity; did not create substantial risk of crime by otherwise law‑abiding person	Jury reasonably found no entrapment; conduct did not shock conscience or meet statutory test

State v. Montgomery, 905 N.W.2d 754 (2018) (standard of review for suppression findings and deference to district court)
State v. Gregg, 615 N.W.2d 515 (2000) (messages voluntarily sent to an undercover account are admissible)
State v. Webster, 834 N.W.2d 283 (2013) (Miranda waiver judged under totality of the circumstances)
State v. Nehring, 509 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1993) (objective entrapment test focusing on law‑enforcement conduct)
State v. Schmidt, 807 N.W.2d 593 (2011) (entrainment requires conduct that shocks the conscience; mere opportunity is insufficient)