E.D.N.C.: The parole search here violated the state parole search authorization and is suppressed

Defendant was subject to a state parole search condition that required reasonable suspicion and is also governed by Griffin’s special needs exception. “the language in a parole search condition is an important factor to consider when assessing the reasonableness of an individual’s expectation of privacy. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 118; Samson, 547 U.S. at 847, 852; United States v. Hill, 776 F.3d 243, 249 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing Knights and Samson and determining that a person on federal supervised release is not subject to warrantless home searches unless a condition authorizing such searches is imposed).” The government fails to establish reasonable suspicion or special needs for this search. [Note that this is the only area of the Fourth Amendment where state law does govern reasonableness. The rule varies from state to state and depends explicitly on the scope of the state authorization, and that binds in federal court.] United States v. Vanderwerf, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217034 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 21, 2017).

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

Comments are closed.