KY: While parole searches require RS, parolees can still consent

Kentucky parole regulations require reasonable suspicion for a parole search. In these two cases, the defendants consented to a suspicionless parole search, and that does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Helphenstine v. Commonwealth, 2014 Ky. LEXIS 8 (February 20, 2014); Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 2014 Ky LEXIS __ (February 20, 2014). The latter:

As noted in Riley, we are aware of Department of Corrections Policy No. 27-16-01 II(D), which authorizes the Department’s officers to search a parolee when there is “reasonable suspicion to believe that an offender is in possession of contraband or in violation of the conditions of his supervision,” and “when the officer has possession of evidence of a violation of the terms and conditions of [the offender’s] supervision.”

Although these provisions may be seen as more stringent than Samson, they do not alter the Fourth Amendment analysis. It is fundamental that by administrative rule or statute a state may impose upon its police authorities more restrictive standards than the Fourth Amendment requires. Such standards, however, cannot expand the scope of the Fourth Amendment itself.
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (a state is free to prefer one search and seizure policy among several constitutionally permissible options, but its choice of a more restrictive option does not render less restrictive ones violative of the Fourth Amendment). Moreover, as noted above, under Copley, even when a search of a parolee is conducted in derogation of Department of Corrections policy, the evidence obtained would not be subject to suppression by application of the exclusionary rule.