Plaintiff was subjected to a parole search, and he contended New York law applied rather than Samson et al. The officer gets qualified immunity on the question because it appears Samson should but we don’t even need to resolve it. He gets judgment as a matter of law on bringing law enforcement officers along with him because that has already been held reasonable. Black v. Petitinato, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3021 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2019):
Black makes a second contention that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the parole officers were accompanied in their search by police officers, and that the search was unlawfully motivated by the police officers’ investigatory purposes rather than the concerns of the parole officers. We reject this claim. We have held that police officers may coordinate with parole officers to conduct a search of a parolee’s home. Police officers are permitted to participate in probation-related searches as a “coordinated effort” between agencies where “the probation officers are pursuing legitimate probation-related objectives.” United States v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 446, 464 (2d Cir. 2002). None of Black’s allegations support his claim that the search was disguised as a parole search to avoid obtaining a judicial warrant that would have been required for a police search. See United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368, 404-05 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[T]he fact that a new prosecution may ensue is not a sign that the parole officer was not pursuing his normal duties.”).