D.Me.: Probationers have greater incentive to dispose of criminal evidence

“Balanced against this diminished expectation of privacy is the government’s heightened interest in evaluating and monitoring the conduct of persons on supervised release. Id. The United States Office of Probation and Pretrial Services has a legitimate, important interest in ‘rehabilitation and protecting society from future criminal violations.’ Knights, 534 U.S. at 119. And this interest comes with a sense of urgency. ‘[Probationers] have even more of an incentive to conceal their criminal activities and quickly dispose of incriminating evidence.’ Id. at 120. Here, at the time of the search, Officer Phillips had corroborated information that supported (minimally) a reasonable suspicion that Neves had a gun and access to contraband drugs and that his phone(s) would bear witness to the same. With this information, Probation had an interest to locate these items to sanction recidivism and protect the public.” United States v. Neves, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63785 (D. Me. Apr. 3, 2025).

The officers didn’t have to actually see defendant doing things to have reasonable suspicion. United States v. Trent, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64096 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2025).*

While the outline of a firearm in defendant’s pocket wasn’t visible on the bodycam video, the court credits that the officers could still see it. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63788 (E.D. La. Apr. 3, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Body cameras, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.