Convict under home detention as a part of sentence is treated the same as a prisoner for Fourth Amendment purposes

Defendant under home detention on the back end of his prison sentence was legally the same status as a prisoner, and he had no expectation of privacy in his home. Also, he was shown a video before he joined the program that told him he was subject to a search of his house the same as a prisoner’s cell is subject to search. United States v. Smith, 526 F.3d 306, 2008 FED App. 0192P (6th Cir. 2008).*

Tribal police officers’ conduct is measured under the Fourth Amendment, the same as a police officer outside his or her jurisdiction, something not a Fourth Amendment issue. United States v. Erickson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40609 (D. S.D. May 8, 2008):

Like in Abbott, the reason the tribal officers’ actions are in question is the result of the law of their sovereign. There is no dispute that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has the power to authorize tribal officers to enforce the law on their reservation. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe has the corresponding power to limit the term of its tribal officers, just like the state of Missouri has the power to limit the jurisdictional boundaries of where its officers can make arrests. These circumscriptions of power, however, are not constitutionally mandated. The tribe’s failure to renew the tribal commissions, although it may result in activity violative of tribal law by the noncommissioned officers, does not render the conduct of those officers “unreasonable” and therefore unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court finds that even assuming the officers involved in the arrests and searches of defendant did not possess valid RST commissions, their noncommissioned status is not relevant to the Fourth Amendment inquiry in this case.