Category Archives: Probation / Parole search

C.D.Cal.: Probation search def wins motion in limine to keep probation records out of jury trial

Defendant was arrested as a result of a probation search. The government succeeds in a motion in limine that the probation records aren’t admissible in the hearing in the prosecution. United States v. Flores, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74506 (C.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Probation search def wins motion in limine to keep probation records out of jury trial

Cal.4 dissent: Riley and Sansom require RS for cell phone probation search

Defendant was subjected to a probation search of a cell phone where the underlying crime had nothing to do with cell phones or the internet. The dissent believes that Riley and Sansom together require reasonable suspicion for a cell phone … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on Cal.4 dissent: Riley and Sansom require RS for cell phone probation search

MT: An improperly certified police officer was still competent as a witness at a suppression hearing under Rule of Evid. 601, 602

An improperly certified police officer was still competent as a witness at a suppression hearing because all witnesses are generally competent to testify to what they saw. Rule of Evid. 601, 602. Under the totality of circumstances, there was probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on MT: An improperly certified police officer was still competent as a witness at a suppression hearing under Rule of Evid. 601, 602

TN: One reference to address as “Drive” not “Street” hardly makes the SW without PC or otherwise invalidate it

“The address is shown as ‘106 Melwood Street’ nine times in the affidavit and one time as ‘106 Melwood Drive.’ Based on the totality of the information contained in the affidavit, we determine that the use of the word ‘drive’ … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on TN: One reference to address as “Drive” not “Street” hardly makes the SW without PC or otherwise invalidate it

Cal.5: Probation search condition applies to BAC blood draw

Defendant was on probation for DWI. His warrantless probation search condition applied to determining his BAC level. People v. Cruz, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 384 (5th Dist. Apr. 25, 2019). This condition was imposed for another DWI. Why wouldn’t a … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on Cal.5: Probation search condition applies to BAC blood draw

D.Conn.: SW for hotel room permitted seizure of room key when it was seen before the search

The search warrant for a hotel room authorized seizure of the key to the hotel room to gain access when the officers came upon it. Plain view applied. Even if plain view didn’t apply, the only suppression would be the … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.Conn.: SW for hotel room permitted seizure of room key when it was seen before the search

ND: 14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale

14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale. State v. Stenhoff, 2019 ND 106 (Apr. 11, 2019). Defendant didn’t preserve his search issues for appeal under state law. “In attempting to reserve the question of whether Defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Staleness, Standards of review | Comments Off on ND: 14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale

LA1: Plain view during a probation “compliance check” is valid

Plain view during a probation “compliance check” is valid. State v. Cheramie, 2019 La. App. LEXIS 576 (La. App. 1 Cir. Apr. 5, 2019). Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress which was heard and denied. He then pled guilty. … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on LA1: Plain view during a probation “compliance check” is valid

OH8: When on probation for bestiality, the Humane Society can conduct probation searches

Defendant was on misdemeanor probation for bestiality with a dog. He was subject to probation searches on reasonable suspicion for whether or not he had pets in the house, and the Animal Protection League (APL) is a part of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH8: When on probation for bestiality, the Humane Society can conduct probation searches

CA2: Unlicensed and unauthorized and driver of rental car had no standing under Byrd

Unlicensed and unauthorized driver of rental car had no standing under Byrd. United States v. Lyle, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9457 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2019). Defendant signed a search waiver as a condition of community control, and that was … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Staleness, Standing | Comments Off on CA2: Unlicensed and unauthorized and driver of rental car had no standing under Byrd

MA: Scope of probation search wasn’t justified by the RS

The probation search of defendant’s bedroom wasn’t justified by the reasonable suspicion that authorized it. “The Commonwealth’s contention that Valenti’s entry into the bedroom was justified as a protective sweep is equally unavailing.” Special needs didn’t work for the state … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MA: Scope of probation search wasn’t justified by the RS

AZ: Probation search could reasonably include cell phone because of nature of allegations

Defendant on felony probation and subject to a warrantless search condition. It was reasonable to search his cell phone under this condition because his mother reported threats and it was possible the cell phone’s contents could corroborate it. State v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search, Search incident | Comments Off on AZ: Probation search could reasonably include cell phone because of nature of allegations

CA9: Warrantless placement of GPS on a parolee’s car was reasonable under 4A

Based on Ninth Circuit precedent that cell phone searches are permitted by the parole search doctrine, the court finds that warrantless placing of a GPS on a parolees car is permitted under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Korte, 2019 … Continue reading →

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA9: Warrantless placement of GPS on a parolee’s car was reasonable under 4A

CA9: Parole search ability extends to trunk of car

A parole search of the trunk of a car is still an area under the control of the defendant and subject to the search. And, CSLI before Carpenter is admissible. United States v. Korte, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7672 (9th … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA9: Parole search ability extends to trunk of car

D.Utah: Def’s suspicionless parole search was valid under Samson

Defendant signed a parole agreement that he was subject to warrantless and suspicionless searches under Utah law. His parole condition wasn’t unconstitutional under Samson, and it doesn’t matter that law enforcement officers were along. Miranda v. United States, 2019 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.Utah: Def’s suspicionless parole search was valid under Samson

DE: A probation search that didn’t comply with the probation laws couldn’t be used in a criminal proceeding

A probation search that didn’t comply with the probation laws couldn’t be used in a criminal proceeding. Walker v. State, 2019 Del. LEXIS 88 (Feb. 21, 2019). The record doesn’t show that defendant’s plea was conditional, so there is no … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on DE: A probation search that didn’t comply with the probation laws couldn’t be used in a criminal proceeding

CA11: When information in a SW affidavit comes from an illegal source, it is purged; here, PC remains

Excising that which was allegedly illegally obtained from the affidavit for this search warrant, probable cause still remains. United States v. Fleur, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4899 (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2019). There was no independent probable cause for the … Continue reading →

Posted in Independent source, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA11: When information in a SW affidavit comes from an illegal source, it is purged; here, PC remains

D.Minn.: A narrative affidavit for SW is hardly “outrageous conduct” to seek to dismiss indictment

Obtaining a search warrant with a narrative affidavit, inter alia, is hardly outrageous governmental conduct warranting dismissal. United States v. Ortiz, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17455 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2019).* Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against a probation search which … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on D.Minn.: A narrative affidavit for SW is hardly “outrageous conduct” to seek to dismiss indictment

CA2: Def parole officer gets QI on whether 4A or NY case law applies to parole search

Plaintiff was subjected to a parole search, and he contended New York law applied rather than Samson et al. The officer gets qualified immunity on the question because it appears Samson should but we don’t even need to resolve it. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA2: Def parole officer gets QI on whether 4A or NY case law applies to parole search

CA7: Exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of federal supervised release

The exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of federal supervised release, applying Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998). United States v. Phillips, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2799 (7th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019). CSLI … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA7: Exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of federal supervised release