E.D.Mich.: In parole searches, federal court’s duty is to determine if state law complied with

The Michigan parole search regulation has been sustained in the Sixth Circuit, and it requires reasonable suspicion. The court’s duty is to determine whether the regulation was complied with by reasonable suspicion, and it was. United States v. Brown, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128823 (E.D.Mich. September 25, 2015). [Note the potential contradiction between this situation and Virginia v. Moore which holds that state law is irrelevant. Will this situation ultimately fall to Moore or will it remain?]:

After determining that a state regulation is valid, the court must then make “a determination of whether the search complied with the applicable provision.” Loney, 331 F.3d at 520. Agent Rummel’s identification of marijuana through an open, bedroom window, in plain view, gave reasonable cause to believe defendant Brown had violated the law and his parole by possessing illegal drugs. The warrantless search also fulfilled two requirements of the Michigan regulation authorizing a search of property based on the “[s]eizure of evidence or contraband in plain view” or the agent’s “reasonable cause to believe that a violation of parole exists.” Therefore, the search of defendant Brown’s house satisfied the reasonable suspicion standard and complied with the applicable regulation.