KS: Where the parole search rules changed and defendant didn’t know, they couldn’t revoke on the rule change

Defendant was a parolee, and his conditions changed with a broader search condition that he agree in writing that he’s aware. The paperwork, however, hadn’t been signed before this search occurred, and that broader condition thus could not be applied to him. In addition, the state did not otherwise prove consent. State v. Chapman, 2015 Kan. App. LEXIS 27 (April 10, 2015).

Officers came to defendant’s apartment in a civil assist to help his girlfriend get her stuff. She told them she loaned defendant money to buy marijuana. When defendant opened the door, they could smell marijuana, and, seeing them, he slammed the door. The officers had exigent circumstances to enter because of the risk of destruction of evidence. State v. Striks, 2015-Ohio-1401, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1354 (2d Dist. April 10, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.