{"id":1506,"date":"2008-02-03T14:16:12","date_gmt":"2007-11-04T06:48:38","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-07T06:48:38","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1506","title":{"rendered":"Probationer’s actions from sounds of hiding things is reasonable suspicion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant probationer’s actions (sounding like he was hiding things) before the search of his bedroom created reasonable suspicion for a search of the bedroom. State v. Uhlig<\/a>, 38 Kan. App. 2d 610, 170 P.3d 894 (2007):<\/p>\n

Also pertinent to this case, Samson<\/em><\/a> makes a distinction between probationers and parolees. The Court held that “parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation.” 126 S. Ct. at 2198. This statement suggests to us a continuum:<\/p>\n

— Prisoners have no expectation of privacy (see Hudson v. Palmer<\/em><\/a>, 468 U.S. 517, 530, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393, 104 S. Ct. 3194 [1984]) and lack Fourth Amendment rights (they can therefore be searched at any time for any reason);<\/p>\n

— parolees have a slight expectation of privacy and therefore can be searched in the absence of reasonable suspicion, but not arbitrarily or capriciously (Samson<\/em>, 126 S. Ct. at 2202); and<\/p>\n

— probationers have a higher expectation of privacy than parolees, but no standard is set forth.<\/p>\n

Such lessons are clear. The law of search and seizure varies based upon the status of the individual searched. First, Griffin<\/em><\/a> indicates that probable cause is not required when a search of a probationer is made because of the special needs of the government. According to Griffin<\/em>, a state regulation only requiring reasonable grounds to search is constitutionally sufficient. Second, Knights<\/em><\/a> teaches that reasonable suspicion is sufficient when a search of a probationer is made. The reasonableness of the search is determined by applying a balancing test that gives much weight to the government’s strong interest in allowing the search. Third, Samson<\/em> indicates that no suspicion is required when a search of a parolee is made, but the opinion fails to set the standard for probationers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Compare United States v. Hamilton, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81266 (W.D. Ark. October 25, 2007), posted just hours ago<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-1506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1506","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=1506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}