{"id":10426,"date":"2014-02-21T15:27:05","date_gmt":"2014-02-22T00:05:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2014-02-21T15:27:05","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10426","title":{"rendered":"KY: While parole searches require RS, parolees can still consent"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Kentucky parole regulations require reasonable suspicion for a parole search. In these two cases, the defendants consented to a suspicionless parole search, and that does not violate the Fourth Amendment. <a href=\"http:\/\/162.114.92.72\/Opinions\/2012-SC-000251-TG.PDF\">Helphenstine v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 2014 Ky. LEXIS 8 (February 20, 2014); <a href=\"http:\/\/162.114.92.72\/Opinions\/2012-SC-000627-MR.PDF\">Bratcher v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 2014 Ky LEXIS __ (February 20, 2014). The latter:<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>As noted in Riley, we are aware of Department of Corrections Policy No. 27-16-01 II(D), which authorizes the Department&#8217;s officers to search a parolee when there is &#8220;reasonable suspicion to believe that an offender is in possession of contraband or in violation of the conditions of his supervision,&#8221; and &#8220;when the officer has possession of evidence of a violation of the terms and conditions of [the offender&#8217;s] supervision.&#8221; <\/p>\n<p>Although these provisions may be seen as more stringent than Samson, they do not alter the Fourth Amendment analysis. It is fundamental that by administrative rule or statute a state may impose upon its police authorities more restrictive standards than the Fourth Amendment requires. Such standards, however, cannot expand the scope of the Fourth Amendment itself.<br \/>\nVirginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (a state is free to prefer one search and seizure policy among several constitutionally permissible options, but its choice of a more restrictive option does not render less restrictive ones violative of the Fourth Amendment). Moreover, as noted above, under Copley, even when a search of a parolee is conducted in derogation of Department of Corrections policy, the evidence obtained would not be subject to suppression by application of the exclusionary rule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10426\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10426","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10426"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10426\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}