{"id":5048,"date":"2011-07-11T15:11:57","date_gmt":"2011-01-02T08:13:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-01-02T08:13:36","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5048","title":{"rendered":"IL: When a probationer lives with a non-probationer, there must be RS a container is controlled by the probationer to search it"},"content":{"rendered":"

Living with a probationer reduces one\u2019s expectation of privacy. There must be reasonable suspicion to believe that the object at issue was under the control of the probationer for a search to occur. People v. Seiler<\/a>, 406 Ill. App. 3d 352, 943 N.E.2d 708 (2010):<\/p>\n

The question then becomes whether Kelly violated defendant’s fourth-amendment rights by removing the container from defendant’s possession and opening it after defendant grabbed the container on a table in a common area of the house. Both parties agree this appears to be a question of first impression in Illinois. Both parties also agree on the proposition that, in order to search a particular item during a warrantless probation search, the probation officer must have reasonable suspicion the item in question is owned, controlled, or possessed by the probationer. See United States v. Davis<\/a>, 932 F.2d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1991); People v. Boyd<\/a>, 224 Cal. App. 3d 736, 744-45, 274 Cal. Rptr. 100, 105-06 (1990) (parole search); Milton v. State<\/a>, 879 P.2d 1031, 1034-35 (Alaska App. 1994). We agree with this standard.<\/p>\n

In this case, an objectively reasonable probation officer could have reasonably suspected this container was owned, controlled, or possessed by Owen. Defendant lunged toward a table in the common area of the residence and made a grabbing motion. The only item in defendant’s hand was the bullet-shaped container. Defendant and Owen were both in the same area of the residence. The police had information both defendant and Owen had been using methamphetamine at the residence. Defendant either could not or would not identify the object in his hand. As a result, we cannot say defendant’s fourth-amendment rights were violated by the search of the container.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus use of handcuffs on defendant was not justified by Terry but there was probable cause, so it was justified by his arrest. People v. Johnson, 408 Ill. App. 3d 107, 945 N.E.2d 2 (2010)* [This case has an excellent discussion of handcuffing and Terry under Illinois law.]<\/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-5048","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5048","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=5048"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5048\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5048"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5048"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}