{"id":7775,"date":"2013-05-31T12:06:40","date_gmt":"2012-09-30T09:18:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-09-30T09:18:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7775","title":{"rendered":"CA6: Ohio probation ignored court order releasing probationer because they disagreed with it; search was illegal"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ohio probation decided that defendant\u2019s release from probation was legally erroneous, so it continued to attempt to supervise him. State officers never legally sought to keep control over him\u2013they just ignored the court order. Defendant\u2019s probations search was thus illegal. United States v. Starnes<\/a>, 501 Fed. Appx. 379 (6th Cir. 2012):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Contrary to the government’s suggestion, the APA had no authority to disregard a binding court order simply because it disagreed with the sentencing judge’s legal analysis. A law enforcement agency has no power to deliberately ignore a court order. United States v. Grooms, 6 F. App’x 377, 381 (7th Cir. 2001). The APA may not grant unto itself the “unique privilege to pick over court orders and [to] choose to enforce only those it deems worthy of enforcement.” Id. When a law enforcement agency acts as the APA did here, it not only “erodes public confidence in law enforcement,” it also “undermines the rule of law itself.” Id.<\/p>\n

The district court erred in finding that the APA took sufficient action to invalidate Judge Rothgery’s order when it “timely expressed to Judge Rothgery its disagreement and so advised the defendant.” Only formal legal action by the sentencing judge, or by an appellate court with appropriate jurisdiction, had the power to rescind the legally binding order and to reinstate Defendant’s parole. An ex parte, private email was not sufficient. Not only does such a private communication fail to provide the defendant with adequate notice, it also has no legal force or effect. We would not indulge a defendant who pursued such a tactic, and we see no reason to extend such special consideration to the APA. A court speaks only through its orders, and only a court order could have rectified the sentencing judge’s error, if indeed there ever was one.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the APA did not have the authority to issue a warrantless search and arrest of Defendant, because a binding court order declared Defendant\u2014as a matter of law\u2014released from supervision.<\/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-7775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7775","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=7775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}