VT: Suspicionless parole searches for internet access and computer use of a SO was reasonable

Probation and parole services did not need reasonable suspicion to conduct home searches of a convicted sex offender for internet access. When released, he agreed to suspicionless searches. There is a state law prohibition on arbitrary or harassing searches, but this wasn’t shown to be either. State v. Bogert, 2013 VT 13A, 2014 Vt. LEXIS 117 (October 10, 2014):

¶ 25. The State’s interest in conducting a suspicionless search of a convicted sex offender at home on conditional-reentry furlough, meanwhile, is strong. The important rehabilitative function of our corrections system extends far beyond prison walls, and the State’s interest in “reducing recidivism and thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship” among those released on conditional-reentry furlough is no less weighty than the State of California’s was in Samson. 547 U.S. at 853-54. In the context of an offender convicted of crimes involving downloading child pornography from the internet, the ability to monitor an offender’s access to and use of the internet while on conditional reentry is reasonably tailored to the State’s public-protection and rehabilitative goals.

¶ 26. In light of the above factors-the clarity of the conditions agreed to by defendant, their nexus to the State’s goals and defendant’s legitimate expectation of privacy, and defendant’s status on conditional reentry-we conclude that defendant’s privacy interest in this case was quite weak, and the State’s countervailing interests in promoting defendant’s rehabilitation and protecting the community was strong. Accordingly, reasonable individualized suspicion was not a prerequisite to DOC’s search of defendant’s home and computer in this case.