PA: Anonymous tip that a parolee had marijuana in his house wasn’t sufficient for RS for a parole search

Anonymous tip that a parolee had marijuana in his house wasn’t sufficient for reasonable suspicion for a parole search, despite the lesser expectation of privacy that a parolee has. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 2015 PA Super 258, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 814 (Dec. 14, 2015):

Furthermore, we find that the anonymous tip in this matter falls short of the information provided and confirmed in the Wimbush case and its companion case. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in White, supra, called that case close and, in that matter, the information relied on by law enforcement was of greater quality and quantity and was confirmed in most of its aspects. Here, Appellant’s parole agent received a bare bones assertion that Appellant was selling drugs and that he had been cited for driving with a suspended license. Admittedly, Appellant’s parole agent confirmed that a citation for the driving violation had been issued, but this is far less corroboration than occurred in Wimbush and in the plurality Goodwin case. In addition, that fact did not need to be further corroborated by searching Appellant’s residence.

We acknowledge that parole agents are not police officers and do not have the same ability to conduct surveillance or confirm information received by a tipster. Nonetheless, the search and seizure statute relative to parole agents expressly states that “[t]he existence of reasonable suspicion to search shall be determined in accordance with constitutional search and seizure provisions as applied by judicial decision.” 61 Pa.C.S. § 6153(d)(6). In this respect, in order for an anonymous tip to give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, it must be of sufficient quality that it may be found reliable.