{"id":32265,"date":"2018-03-19T04:05:33","date_gmt":"2018-03-19T09:05:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32265"},"modified":"2018-03-19T04:05:33","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T09:05:33","slug":"wa-state-const-requires-nexus-between-parole-violation-and-scope-of-probation-search","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32265","title":{"rendered":"WA: State const. requires nexus between parole violation and scope of probation search"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cIt is well established that an individual on probation has a reduced expectation of privacy, and a community corrections officer (CCO) may conduct a warrantless search if he or she suspects the individual has violated a probation condition. The issue in this case is whether there are any limitations on the scope of the CCO’s search. We hold that article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution requires a nexus between the property searched and the suspected probation violation. There was no nexus in the search at issue here. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and Cornwell’s convictions.\u201d The court resolved a conflict between two divisions of the court of appeals, and the court doesn\u2019t cite the Fourth Amendment. State v. Cornwell<\/a>, 2018 Wash. LEXIS 205 (Mar. 15, 2018):
\n<\/p>\n

\u00b627 In sum, we believe \u201c[t]he goals of the probation process can \u2026 be accomplished with rules and procedures that provide both the necessary societal protections as well as the necessary constitutional protections.\u201d State v. Lampman, 45 Wn. App. 228, 233, 724 P.2d 1092 (1986). Limiting the scope of a CCO’s search to property reasonably believed to have a nexus with the suspected probation violation protects the privacy and dignity of individuals on probation while still allowing the State ample supervision. We therefore hold that article I, section 7 permits a warrantless search of the property of an individual on probation only where there is a nexus between the property searched and the alleged probation violation.<\/p>\n

\u00b628 Applying the nexus requirement to this case, we conclude CCO Grabski’s search of Cornwell’s car exceeded its lawful scope. While CCO Grabski may have suspected Cornwell violated other probation conditions, the only probation violation supported by the record is Cornwell’s failure to report. This court has already determined that there is no nexus between property and the crime of failure to report. State v. Patton, 167 Wn.2d 379, 395, 219 P.3d 651 (2009). Moreover, CCO Grabski’s testimony at the CrR 3.6 hearing confirmed that he had no expectation that the search would produce evidence of Cornwell’s failure to report, and that he searched the vehicle only because Cornwell \u201cha[d] a felony warrant for his arrest \u2026 in violation of his probation [and] [h]e’s driving the vehicle.\u201d 1 VRP at 93. He explained that his search was not limited in scope because \u201c[i]f there is anything in the vehicle, whether it is in a suitcase, clothing, I’m going to go through those items.\u201d Id. at 94. He also testified that he was looking for unrelated probation violations because he searched the vehicle \u201cto make sure there’s no further violations of his probation.\u201d Id. at 93 (emphasis added). CCO Grabski’s search was clearly \u201c\u2018a fishing expedition,\u2019\u201d which article I, section 7 does not permit. Olsen, 189 Wn.2d at 134 (quoting Combs, 102 Wn. App. at 953).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cIt is well established that an individual on probation has a reduced expectation of privacy, and a community corrections officer (CCO) may conduct a warrantless search if he or she suspects the individual has violated a probation condition. The issue … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,58,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nexus","category-probationparole-search","category-state-constitution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32265","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=32265"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32266,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32265\/revisions\/32266"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=32265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=32265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=32265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}