MT: Renter of person on probation isn’t subject to landlord’s probation search

Defendant rented an outbuilding as a residence from a person on probation. His separate room was not subject to the landlord’s probation search waiver. In addition, one doesn’t have to lock his residence to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. State v. Thomas, 2020 MT 222, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2283 (Sept. 1, 2020):

[*P15] We turn first to consideration of Thomas’s legitimate expectations of privacy in the outbuilding he rented from Paris—his primary residence. From our review of the record, the District Court misapprehended the evidence in concluding Paris and Thomas to be “roommates” and the outbuilding rented by Thomas to be part of Paris’s residence. The undisputed evidence established an arms-length rental arrangement between Paris and Thomas providing Thomas exclusive control over the outbuilding as his primary residence. While Thomas may have had access to Paris’s residence, she did not have similar access to his residence. While Thomas’s residence did not contain some functions ordinarily associated with a separate and distinct dwelling, it was indeed used as Thomas’s separate and distinct dwelling. Thus, the District Court’s findings that Paris and Thomas were roommates and his “room” was part of Paris’s residence are clearly erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence.

[*P16] Next, we consider whether Thomas’s legitimate expectation of privacy in his residence was diminished by Paris’s probation conditions, specifically the condition permitting warrantless searches at any time, day or night, of all places in her residence where she has access including private rooms of other persons with whom she resides, unless those rooms are locked and she does not have access to those rooms. Thomas does not contest the probation search of Paris’s residence—only that the search exceeded the scope of the authorized probationary search. We agree with Thomas. Stasiak knew of and approved the arms-length rental relationship between Paris and Thomas and, as such, knew Thomas to have exclusive control over the outbuilding where he resided. The misdemeanor sentencing order and the terms and conditions of probation signed by Paris reduced Paris’s rights of privacy in her person and residence, but did not govern Thomas. One does not lose his or her privacy rights in his or her residence merely because he or she rents the residence from a person on probation. Thomas was not on probation and not subject to probationary searches. Thomas’s rights to privacy in his person and residence were not diminished by Paris’s probationary status or the rules applicable to her probation.

. . .

[*P19] The District Court misapplied Finley, giving it an excessively broad interpretation. Were we to accept this interpretation, the exception to warrantless searches would nearly swallow the federal and state constitutional protections against such. This case is completely distinguishable from Finley. Here, unlike Finley, Paris and Thomas are not married or even in a relationship with each other. Instead they entered into an arms-length rental arrangement providing Thomas exclusive control and possession over the outbuilding which he used as his primary residence. Unlike Finley, where Finley’s wife shared the living space and bedroom where the safe was located—the area searched—Thomas did not share his residence with Paris but instead Paris permitted Thomas to use her bathroom and kitchen facilities. Thomas did not have to lock his outbuilding residence to have a legitimate expectation of privacy in it.

This entry was posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.