{"id":3103,"date":"2009-06-27T10:43:06","date_gmt":"2009-04-30T07:30:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-04-30T07:30:08","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3103","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Probation search of home must be based on RS"},"content":{"rendered":"

Under Knights<\/a>, a probation search of defendant’s home need only be justified by reasonable suspicion. United States v. Carter<\/a>, 566 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2009):<\/p>\n

Unlike the defendants in Yuknavich and Knights<\/a>, Carter was on probation for both a violent felony and a drug-related felony. As the Knights Court noted, the government’s interest in monitoring a probationer stems from a probationer’s propensity to commit more crimes, as well as a probationer’s motivation to hide the evidence of his crimes. In this case, where the probationer has a history of drug and violence-related felonies, the government’s interest in monitoring the probationer is particularly high. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. \u00a7 4B1.1(a) (providing enhanced penalties for criminals with history of drug felonies or crime of violence felonies).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officers invited into defendant’s house could follow defendant to get his shirt and shoes and conduct a protective sweep of that area. United States v. Wright<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8727 (11th Cir. April 24, 2009) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

Wright voluntarily consented to allow officers to enter his house in order for him to retrieve his shirt and shoes thus providing the officers with a legal right to be in the kitchen. The purpose of the protective sweep of Wright’s kitchen was to secure it and investigate the officers’ reasonable suspicion of danger. They knew that Wright had previously kept weapons in his home and that Tolbert was in the house. The sweep did not last longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and obtain Wright’s clothing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officers had reasonable suspicion based on corroborated informant’s information that he had a gun. [Court discusses all the information they have and how it all fit together.] United States v. Hicks, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34860 (E.D. Wis. April 24, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant was asked about guns in bedroom, and she must have understood that she was consenting to look for weapons. Looking in a drawer was not unreasonable. United States v. Reynolds, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35136 (D. Me. April 21, 2009).*<\/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-3103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3103","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=3103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}