The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal conviction of Kimberly Dawn Mogren for child endangerment and possession of a controlled substance, rejecting her appeal to suppress evidence found during a social worker's search of her home.
In *State v. Mogren* (2026 ND 2), the high court upheld a district court ruling that allowed evidence obtained during a child welfare investigation to be used in criminal proceedings. Justice Tufte wrote the opinion affirming the judgment from the Ward County District Court.
The case originated in January 2025 when Mogren's child reported to a school official that his mother was using methamphetamine and that he had found narcotics in a sunglasses case in a bathroom at their home. The school promptly notified the Ward County Human Service Zone, triggering a child protective services response.
A child protective services worker conducted a welfare check at Mogren's residence. According to court records, Mogren allowed the social worker to enter the home and consented to her searching the area where the child had described finding the narcotics. The social worker located the sunglasses case in the bathroom, and Mogren consented to the social worker opening it.
Inside the sunglasses case, the social worker observed what she believed to be a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. The social worker then contacted the Kenmare Police Department about her observations, and an officer responded to the residence.
Before the police officer arrived, the sunglasses case was closed. When the officer arrived at the home, Mogren consented to his entry. After discussing the discovery with the social worker, the officer asked Mogren whether he could search the area where the sunglasses case was found and whether he could open the sunglasses case.
Mogren subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of Endangerment of a Child and Possession of a Controlled Substance. As part of her plea agreement, she reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of her motion to suppress the evidence found in the sunglasses case.
The motion to suppress centered on whether the evidence obtained during the social worker's search could be used against Mogren in criminal proceedings. Mogren argued that the search violated her constitutional rights and that the evidence should be excluded from her criminal case.
The Honorable Gary H. Lee of the Ward County District Court denied Mogren's motion to suppress, ruling that the evidence was admissible. The district court's decision allowed prosecutors to use the controlled substances and drug paraphernalia found in the sunglasses case as evidence in the criminal prosecution.
Mogren appealed the denial of her suppression motion to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Her attorney, Kyle R. Craig of Minot, argued that the district court erred in allowing the evidence to be used against his client. Assistant State's Attorney Kenessa R. Copeland represented the state in defending the lower court's ruling.
The Supreme Court's affirmance means that evidence obtained during child welfare investigations can be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions under certain circumstances. The court's decision upholds the principle that consent given to social workers during child protective services investigations can extend to law enforcement officers when they become involved.
This case highlights the intersection between child protective services investigations and criminal law enforcement. When children report suspected illegal activity by parents or guardians, social workers must balance their duty to protect children with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The ruling demonstrates how information obtained during child welfare checks can lead to criminal charges. In this case, the child's report to school officials triggered a chain of events that resulted in both child protective services intervention and criminal prosecution.
The case also illustrates the legal concept of conditional guilty pleas, which allow defendants to plead guilty while preserving their right to appeal specific legal issues. Mogren's conditional plea enabled her to accept responsibility for the charges while still challenging the admissibility of the evidence against her.
The affirmance by the North Dakota Supreme Court establishes precedent for similar cases involving evidence discovered during child welfare investigations. The decision clarifies that properly obtained consent during social services investigations can support the admission of evidence in criminal proceedings.
For child protective services workers and law enforcement officers, the ruling provides guidance on how evidence obtained during joint investigations can be used in criminal prosecutions. The case emphasizes the importance of obtaining proper consent and following constitutional procedures during searches conducted as part of child welfare investigations.
The Supreme Court's decision in *State v. Mogren* reinforces the principle that protecting children from endangerment remains a paramount concern, even when it leads to criminal consequences for parents or guardians. The ruling balances constitutional protections with the state's interest in child welfare and public safety.