The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Christopher John Golberg's child neglect conviction in a 4-1 decision, rejecting his constitutional challenges to evidence seized during a police search of his then-girlfriend's home.
The case, *State v. Golberg* (N.D. 2026), arose from an investigation into allegations that Golberg assaulted his then-girlfriend Shantel Lais's daughter. Social workers and a detective visited Lais's home to investigate the reported abuse.
According to court records, the investigators entered through an open garage door, knocked on an interior entryway door, and were admitted into the home by Lais. The State alleged that once inside, Lais consented to a search of the residence.
During the search, the detective found what he described as "a complete and utter mess" with various firearms and open alcohol containers within reach of Lais and Golberg's two-year-old child. Investigators also discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia in the home.
Based on these findings, the State charged Golberg with three offenses: unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a firearm, and child neglect.
Golberg challenged the evidence through a motion to suppress, arguing that the detective's entry into the garage was illegal. The District Court of Mercer County held a suppression hearing, during which the detective served as the sole witness.
The detective testified about the circumstances of the entry, explaining that social workers approached what he described as "the walk-through door" rather than "the primary garage door." However, the district court denied Golberg's motion to suppress the evidence.
Following a jury trial, Golberg was convicted of child neglect. He then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, raising two primary arguments: first, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, and second, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction.
Justice Jensen wrote the majority opinion for the high court, joined by Chief Justice Fair McEvers and Justices Tufte and Bahr. The majority rejected both of Golberg's arguments and affirmed the conviction.
Justice Crothers filed a dissenting opinion, though the court records provided do not detail the specific grounds for the dissent.
The case highlights ongoing legal questions about the scope of Fourth Amendment protections in child welfare investigations. When social workers and law enforcement collaborate in investigating potential child abuse, courts must balance the urgent need to protect children against constitutional requirements for lawful searches and seizures.
The timing of entry through garage doors versus main entrances, the presence of social workers alongside police, and the nature of consent given by occupants all factor into determinations about whether evidence obtained during such investigations should be suppressed.
Child neglect prosecutions often rely heavily on evidence of unsafe living conditions, including the presence of weapons, drugs, or other hazards accessible to minors. In this case, the detective's observations about firearms and alcohol within a toddler's reach apparently provided key evidence supporting the neglect charge.
The case also demonstrates how child abuse investigations can expand to encompass multiple criminal charges. What began as an investigation into alleged assault of Lais's daughter ultimately resulted in charges related to weapons possession, drug paraphernalia, and child neglect.
Prosecutor Todd A. Schwarz, the State's Attorney for Stanton, represented the State in the appeal, while defense attorney Kiara C. Kraus-Parr of Grand Forks represented Golberg.
The conviction was initially entered by the Honorable Bobbi B. Weiler in the South Central Judicial District. The case was designated as No. 20250224 in the state court system.
With the Supreme Court's affirmation, Golberg's conviction becomes final unless he pursues further appellate options. The decision reinforces law enforcement authority to conduct searches in child welfare investigations when proper consent is obtained, even when the initial entry occurs through unconventional means like garage doors.
The ruling may provide guidance for future cases involving the intersection of child protection investigations and Fourth Amendment rights, particularly regarding the standards for evaluating consent and entry procedures in multi-agency investigations involving both social services and law enforcement personnel.
This case reflects broader challenges facing courts in balancing constitutional protections with the urgent imperative to safeguard children from neglect and abuse in their homes.