The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal conviction of Shantel Rose Lais for child neglect and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, rejecting her constitutional challenge to evidence obtained during a police search.
Lais had conditionally pleaded guilty to both charges while preserving her right to appeal the district court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. She argued that law enforcement violated her Fourth Amendment rights by illegally entering an area where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In a brief summary opinion issued Tuesday, Justice Jon J. Jensen wrote for a four-justice majority that included Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers and Justices Jerod E. Tufte and Douglas A. Bahr. The court relied heavily on its decision in *State v. Golberg* (2026 ND 11), a companion case involving Lais's co-defendant Christopher Golberg that was decided the same day.
"In that appeal, we decided the court did not err when it declined to suppress evidence after finding no reasonable expectation of privacy existed," Jensen wrote, citing the *Golberg* decision. "For the reasons expressed in *Golberg*, we summarily affirm the judgment entered in this case."
The original charges arose from an incident in Mercer County, where the case was tried before District Judge Bobbi B. Weiler in the South Central Judicial District. The specific facts of the search that led to Lais's arrest were not detailed in the summary opinion, but the case centered on whether law enforcement officers had the right to enter and search an area where Lais claimed she had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. Courts typically apply a two-part test to determine whether a search violates these protections: whether the person had a subjective expectation of privacy, and whether that expectation was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Lais was represented by attorney Jamie L. Schaible of Fargo, while the state was represented by Mercer County State's Attorney Todd A. Schwarz of Stanton, who submitted the case on brief without oral argument.
Justice Daniel Crothers filed a dissenting opinion, though the court's summary disposition provided limited detail about his reasoning. Crothers wrote that he "respectfully dissent[ed] for the reasons stated in my dissent in *State v. Golberg*," suggesting his objection related to the majority's analysis of the Fourth Amendment privacy expectations in the underlying factual scenario.
The use of a summary opinion under North Dakota Appellate Rule 35.1(a)(7) indicates the court viewed the case as straightforward given the controlling precedent established in *Golberg*. This procedural tool allows courts to affirm lower court decisions without extensive analysis when "a previous controlling appellate decision is dispositive of the appeal."
Conditional guilty pleas, like the one Lais entered, allow defendants to preserve certain legal issues for appeal while still accepting responsibility for the underlying charges. This procedural mechanism enables appellate courts to review important constitutional questions even after a defendant has pleaded guilty.
The child neglect charge suggests the case involved endangering the welfare of a minor, while the drug paraphernalia possession indicates the presence of items used for consuming illegal substances. Both charges are serious criminal offenses under North Dakota law that can result in significant penalties including imprisonment and fines.
The case also demonstrates the interconnected nature of criminal prosecutions involving multiple defendants. Lais and Golberg were apparently co-defendants in the underlying criminal case, leading to parallel appeals that raised identical Fourth Amendment challenges to the same search evidence.
The timing of the decisions—both cases received 2026 opinions numbered consecutively as ND 11 and ND 12—suggests they were argued and decided together or in close succession, allowing the court to provide consistent rulings on the same constitutional question.
For criminal defense attorneys, the case highlights the importance of preserving constitutional challenges through conditional pleas when factual guilt may be difficult to contest. However, the summary affirmance also demonstrates that appellate courts will not hesitate to rely on recent precedent when the legal analysis is substantially identical.
The decision becomes part of North Dakota's body of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, particularly regarding what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy in the context of law enforcement searches. While the specific facts remain unclear from this summary opinion, the *Golberg* decision appears to have established the controlling legal standard that the court applied here.
The case was decided by the full five-member North Dakota Supreme Court, with the 4-1 majority reflecting broad agreement with the constitutional analysis, despite Justice Crothers's dissenting view.