Defendant argues the state probation search agreement (“his probation officer”) rather than the statute’s provision that he was generally subject to search was not controlling. The court disagrees: The statute controls and it’s clear. The fact a law enforcement task force was involved does not make it unreasonable. United States v. Scott, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32029 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019).
Defendant’s post-conviction claim that the DNA swab warrant was executed at a courthouse holding cell instead of at the jail was effectively withdrawn by appellate counsel by conceding there was no evidence it was drawn at the wrong lockup. Stinson v. State, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 594 (Oct. 25, 2019).*