{"id":2377,"date":"2008-08-17T12:01:28","date_gmt":"2008-08-18T05:59:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-17T11:59:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2377","title":{"rendered":"MS: Roadblock to stop parolee suspected of wrongdoing was valid"},"content":{"rendered":"

Roadblock to stop a parolee apparently eluding the police was valid because of the parolee’s lesser expectation of privacy and general lack of freedom. Barlow v. State<\/a>, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 471 (August 12, 2008):<\/p>\n

P16. Barlow contends that the drugs that were seized during the traffic stop and those that were seized from the Beard Road residence are fruits of an unlawful search and seizure that should not have been admitted into evidence. Barlow argues that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make the warrantless stop, and that the roadblock was violative of the Fourth Amendment because it was pretextual, as it was set up solely to apprehend him. Barlow cites Indianapolis v. Edmond<\/em><\/a>, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) for the proposition that roadblocks that are set up solely to trap drug offenders have been found to violate the Fourth Amendment. In Edmond<\/em>, the City of Indianapolis instituted a vehicle checkpoint operation in which roadblocks were set up “in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs.” Id<\/em>. at 34. The United States Supreme Court held that the vehicle checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment because their primary purpose was “to advance ‘the general interest in crime control.'” Id<\/em>. at 44 n.1.<\/p>\n

P17. Barlow’s reliance on Edmond<\/em> is misplaced, as he fails to consider that because he is a parolee, he has a lesser expectation of privacy. While we recognize that the Fourth Amendment mandates that searches be reasonable, “the reasonableness of a search is determined ‘by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.'” United States v. Knights<\/em><\/a>, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001) (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton<\/em><\/a>, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999)). In Samson v. California<\/em><\/a>, 547 U.S. 843, 850 (2006), the United States Supreme Court held that:<\/p>\n

[P]arolees are on the “continuum” of state-imposed punishments. [Knights<\/em>, 534 U.S. at 119], 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (internal quotation marks omitted). On this continuum, parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is to imprisonment. As this Court has pointed out, “parole is an established variation on imprisonment of convicted criminals. … The essence of parole is release from prison, before the completion of sentence, on the condition that the prisoner abides by certain rules during the balance of the sentence.” Morrissey<\/em> [v. Brewer<\/em>, 408 U.S. 471, 477, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2598 33 L. Ed. 2d 484, 492 (1972)]. “In most cases, the State is willing to extend parole only because it is able to condition it upon compliance with certain requirements.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Further, in Robinson v. State<\/em>, 312 So. 2d 15, 18 (Miss. 1975), the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded that “courts generally hold that although an inmate is released on parole, the parole authorities may subject him, his home and his effects, to inspection and search as may seem advisable to them.” This issue lacks merit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-2377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2377","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=2377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}