S.D.Ohio: While Ohio law requires PC to search a parolee, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t

While Ohio law requires PC to search a parolee, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t in federal court. United States v. Hill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45754 (S.D. Ohio March 29, 2013):

The fact that Ohio law may provide greater protection, insofar as ORC § 2967.131 restricts warrantless searches to circumstances when parole officers have reasonable grounds to believe that the parolee is not abiding by the law or by the parolee’s terms of supervision, does not mean that the Fourth Amendment provides the same protection. Id. Thus, under the Fourth Amendment, neither warrant and probable cause requirements apply to searches of parolees nor does the reasonable suspicion requirement in ORC § 2967.131 apply to searches of parolees. United States v. Smith, 526 F.3d 306, 310 (6th Cir. 2008).

The Fourth Amendment, not state law, controls in this federal proceeding where D’Andre Hill is in federal court being prosecuted for a federal crime. See United States v. Douds, 2009 WL 2168828 at *9 (S.D. Ohio July 21, 2009). Further, D’Andre Hill has not argued that the search of his person was conducted for some clearly improper purpose such as harassment. Therefore, the police officers that searched D’Andre Hill on December 13, 2011, were not required to have reasonable grounds to believe that he was not abiding by the law. The fact that D’Andre Hill was on parole was enough to justify this search. Further, since the search of his person was not violative of the Fourth Amendment, the seizure of his cell phones was not violative of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, although a warrant was obtained, a warrant not challenged by D’Andre Hill, a warrantless search of the cell phones found on D’Andre Hill would not have been violative of the Fourth Amendment because he was subject to the conditions of his parole at the time of this search.

Back to blog