{"id":8440,"date":"2013-03-02T09:55:09","date_gmt":"2013-03-02T09:55:09","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-03-02T09:55:09","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8440","title":{"rendered":"VT: “Special needs” justified parole search of sex offender’s computer"},"content":{"rendered":"

The special needs of parole of a sex offender outweighed defendant\u2019s privacy interest in his computer while on parole. The parole search of his computer was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Bogert<\/a>, 2013 VT 13, 2013 Vt. LEXIS 11 (February 22, 2013)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

[*P15] On the other side of the balance, the Court found the state had an \u201coverwhelming interest\u201d in supervising parolees because, as demonstrated by the nearly 70% recidivism rate of California parolees, \u201cparolees are more likely to commit future criminal offenses.\u201d Id. at 853-54 (quotation and alteration omitted). The Court focused on the state’s interest in \u201creducing recidivism and thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship among probationers and parolees.\u201d Id. at 853. The Court accepted that \u201cgiven the number of inmates the State paroles and its high recidivism rate, a requirement that searches be based on individualized suspicion would undermine the State’s ability to effectively supervise parolees and protect the public from criminal acts by reoffenders\u201d by affording those parolees a greater opportunity to \u201canticipate searches and conceal criminality.\u201d Id. at 854. In light of the above, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee. Id. at 857.<\/p>\n

[*P16] In light of Samson, defendant’s federal constitutional claim is doomed to fail. His Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy, given his conditional reentry status subject to the agreed-upon condition that he submit to a search at any time, is no greater than that of the defendant in Samson, and the State’s supervision goals are no weaker than those of California. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the search in this case.<\/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-8440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8440","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}