Probation search failed because police couldn’t show the house entered was his home

Officers did not have probable cause to believe that the place searched was probationer defendant’s residence. He was a guest in somebody else’s house, the place he was suspected of delivering drugs from. Therefore, the entry without a warrant was unlawful. United States v. McAdoo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22231 (C.D. Cal. March 6, 2008):

In United States v. Howard, the Ninth Circuit surveyed thirty years of relevant caselaw and noted four “patterns” among those cases in which the court found probable cause:

(1) the probationer “gave [the officers] good reason to suspect that the [probationer] was using [the searched home] as his home base”;
(2) the probationer had a key to the searched residence;
(3) the probationer (or someone close to him) admitted that he resided at the searched home; and
(4) the probationer “did not appear to be residing at any address other than the one searched.”

447 F.3d at 1266. These patterns are not required elements, but cases upholding a search typically contain at least three of the Howard patterns.

Comment: This case is an intriguing explanation of the four factors finding them all deficient or weak in this case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.