DE: Probation search technical requirements are subject to substantial compliance

A probation search is an administrative search, and it only need substantially comply with the administrative requirements to be reasonable. Pendleton v. State, 990 A.2d 417 (Del. 2010):

In this appeal, we consider the validity of evidence seized during an administrative search conducted after a probation officer telephonically conferred with his supervisor but failed to complete a tangible, paper copy of a pre-search checklist. Ezra Pendleton contends that absent exigent circumstances, probation officers should strictly comply with the Department of Corrections’ guidelines and failure to do so here necessitates a reversal of his Possession with intent to Deliver Cocaine conviction. In Fuller v. State, we acknowledged that substantial compliance with departmental guidelines alone–not absolute compliance–sufficiently withstands review of an administrative search. Here, we find substantial compliance. Therefore, we must AFFIRM.

. . .

McClure’s failure to complete the technical requirements does not negate the importance of his discussion of the five factors with Allfather. Although he did not physically fill out the pre-search checklist, McClure’s conduct fulfills the spirit of the guidelines. In analyzing the factors, rationally assessing the facts known to him, and obtaining supervisory approval, McClure ensured that the Department of Corrections had sufficient grounds before searching Pendleton’s home.

Defendant’s probation search of his house was with reasonable suspicion after surveillance. Murray v. State, 991 A.2d 18 (Del. 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.