Mere status as a probationer does not justify complete search of his premises; more is required

Being a probationer alone does not justify a full search of the probationer’s premises without some other justification by regulation or court order. Here, the defendant was arrested and a 45 minute search incident of the entire premises occurred without a warrant. Search suppressed. Jones v. State, 282 Ga. 784, 653 S.E.2d 456 (2007):

As discussed above, the Supreme Court of the United States has strongly suggested that the Fourth Amendment right not to have one’s home searched without a warrant may only be denied to probationers through a valid law, legally authorized regulation, or sentencing order giving notice of that deprivation of rights. We find such reasoning persuasive because notice is a critical consideration in determining the limits of any reasonable expectation of privacy. The State has pointed out no such law, legally authorized regulation, or sentencing order stripping Jones of his Fourth Amendment right not to have his home searched without a warrant. Accordingly, we hold that Jones’s status as a probationer, standing alone, cannot serve as a substitute for a search warrant.

Exclusionary rule does not apply to a Children in Need of Services petition. The search here was of a digital camera without any apparent reason during a 911 call after a walk through by the police. In re J.V., 875 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. App. 2007).