{"id":2265,"date":"2009-08-29T09:35:50","date_gmt":"2008-07-17T06:18:59","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-17T06:18:59","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2265","title":{"rendered":"ID:  Probationer&#8217;s borrowed car is subject to search without warrant"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A probationer&#8217;s car is subject to search even it if is a borrowed car. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isc.idaho.gov\/opinions\/adams32876.pdf\">State v. Adams<\/a>, 146 Idaho 162, 191 P.3d 240 (App. 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>If Adams&#8217; probation officer were required to obtain a warrant to conduct a search of any vehicle other than Adams&#8217; registered vehicle, Adams would be able to evade close supervision by only driving someone else&#8217;s car when engaged in elicit activity or registering a car in someone else&#8217;s name for that purpose. Allowing Adams and other probationers to play this shell game with probation officers would defeat the state&#8217;s substantial interest in closely monitoring probationers. See <em>Cruz<\/em>, 144 Idaho at 910, 174 P.3d at 880. We hold that Adams was entitled to no greater Fourth Amendment protections in his girlfriend&#8217;s vehicle than he would have received in his own car. Because a search supported by a reasonable suspicion of possible probation violations would have been upheld had it occurred in Adams&#8217; own vehicle, Adams cannot obtain suppression of the items seized in his girlfriend&#8217;s vehicle. See <em>id.<\/em> at 910, 174 P.3d at 880. In sum, Adams&#8217; Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the government&#8217;s substantial interest in supervising probationers outweighs Adams&#8217; significantly diminished expectation of privacy in his girlfriend&#8217;s vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>State officer&#8217;s stop outside his jurisdiction was apparently valid under Missouri law, and, even if it was not, it was valid under <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=06-1082\"><em>Moore<\/em><\/a>.  The consent was obtained here shortly after the stop so there is no issue about prolonging the stop. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/08\/07\/063763P.pdf\">United States v. Benitez<\/a>, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14906 (8th Cir. July 15, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2265\">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-2265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2265","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=2265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}