{"id":1893,"date":"2008-07-21T19:54:46","date_gmt":"2008-03-19T05:47:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-19T05:47:22","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1893","title":{"rendered":"Probation search of third party’s private area was unlawful"},"content":{"rendered":"

Probation search of third party’s specific private area was unlawful. While the probation officers could enter, their authority was limited to common areas or the specific room that the probationer stayed in. Searching the other person’s room violated his rights. State v. McKague<\/a>, 143 Wn. App. 531 (2008):<\/p>\n

In this case, the officers did not seek Schultz’s or Ken’s permission to search the premises in general or Ken’s shed, specifically. Even giving the State the benefit of the doubt about whether Jay, who was under DOC supervision, resided in his mother’s house, Ken was owed the full protections of our constitution and the Fourth Amendment, and he was entitled to an expectation of privacy within his portion of the home, whether it was a bedroom in the main house or in the shed. Therefore, had law enforcement been able to legally gain entry into the house because Jay was a probationer living there, the search had to be limited to common areas and to those areas Jay was known to occupy. See Hocker<\/em>, 95 Wn.2d at 826; Winterstein<\/em>, 140 Wn. App. at 692 n.5. As such, the officers had no justification to search the shed, particularly after Schultz specifically told them that only Ken stayed in it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officer approached a vehicle that was parked in a closed park with a flashlight on the occupants, and the defendant did not put his hands out where they could be seen, despite repeated requests, so the officer could remove him from the car, pat him down, and handcuff him. State v. Renard<\/a>, 982 So. 2d 157 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n

A traffic stop revealed the driver was underage and the smell of alcohol coming out of the car justified a detention. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 1147, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1018 (3d Dist. March 17, 2008).*<\/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-1893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1893","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=1893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1893\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}