{"id":21031,"date":"2016-02-29T00:12:13","date_gmt":"2016-02-29T05:12:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21031"},"modified":"2016-02-28T08:33:42","modified_gmt":"2016-02-28T13:33:42","slug":"ia-probation-pre-consent-to-search-sex-offenders-cell-phone-was-valid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21031","title":{"rendered":"IA: Probation pre-consent to search sex offender’s cell phone was valid"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s probation search conditions included consent to search his property, and his cell phone was properly searched. \u201cAn additional consideration supports our conclusion Barth consented to the search of his cellular phone for non-investigatory purposes. Barth was participating in the sex offender treatment program. The \u2018sex offender treatment program was established for bona fide rehabilitative purposes.\u2019 State v. Washington, 832 N.W.2d 650, 660 (Iowa 2013). \u2018Rehabilitation is a legitimate penological interest that must be weighed against [a probationer’s] liberty.\u2019 Id. Participation in the sex offender treatment program for rehabilitative purposes \u2018may impose difficult choices on defendants to serve a valid penological goal without crossing the line into unconstitutional compulsion.\u2019 Id. Here, Barth entered into the Sex Offender Treatment Program Contract\/Supervision Agreement, which required Barth’s consent to search his cellular phone. The purpose of the consent to search was to allow the Department of Correctional Services to ensure Barth was not engaging in conduct that might otherwise be lawful (e.g., viewing pornography) but contrary to his rehabilitative goals. [\u00b6] Even if Barth had not consented to the search of his cellular phone, the search of his cellular phone was authorized by the special needs doctrine.\u201d State v. Barth<\/a>, 2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 144 (Feb. 24, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s probation search conditions included consent to search his property, and his cell phone was properly searched. \u201cAn additional consideration supports our conclusion Barth consented to the search of his cellular phone for non-investigatory purposes. Barth was participating in the … 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":[5,58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-probationparole-search"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21031"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21032,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21031\/revisions\/21032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}