Probation/Parole Searches...

[jdlong]

Probation Officer here in Nor Cal. Just wondering how fellow LEO's across the nation are handling Probation/Parole searches in regards to fairly recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions on having to or not having to establish "reasonable suspicion" (People vs. Reyes and People vs. Crawford).

Our Attorney General has given us the green light to go back to the People vs. Reyes ruling and conduct our searches anytime...and for any reason...the way it should be if Search and Seizure is a condition!! We're an armed department and work daily with our S.O. and local P.D. brothers on our County Task Force. Probation and Parole in other states might be different. I know that some Probation Departments across the nation don't arm their officers...INSANE!!! :mad:

Are fellow LEO's working closely with their Probation and Parole Officers?? Just wondering how things are being done. Are you conducting your searches with or without "reasonable suspicion"? We've been very successful partnering with our S.O. and local P.D.'s. After all, we all share the same pool of dirtbags!! :D We share intel and conduct high risk searches and warrant services daily.

[webjeep]

We have a "community supervised probation" thing where they basically sign the agreement to have a curfiew, abide by certain conditions, and are sometimes subject to warrantless search. We do not have armed PO's so we conduct the curfiew checks and if we run across them in the street write up a contact card. If they are subhect to the searches, we search them. If they refuse we cannot search them, but report to their PO and get them violated. We haven't had any problems. Though most of them would rather get the six months for violating than the year or two or five for whatever they have in their pocket.

[jdlong]

We have a "community supervised probation" thing where they basically sign the agreement to have a curfiew, abide by certain conditions, and are sometimes subject to warrantless search. We do not have armed PO's so we conduct the curfiew checks and if we run across them in the street write up a contact card. If they are subhect to the searches, we search them. If they refuse we cannot search them, but report to their PO and get them violated. We haven't had any problems. Though most of them would rather get the six months for violating than the year or two or five for whatever they have in their pocket.

Thanks for the response. Sounds like a damn good deal for the dirtbag!! Put them on "Community Supervised Probation"...yet they can refuse to allow an LEO to search them. Sounds like something we'd come up with here in liberal, whacky California! :D At least their PO's are violating them. Too bad your PO's aren't armed and trained appropriately for partnerships with local law enforcement agencies. Like I said it's a great, "win-win" relationship. My S.O. brothers lick their chops when they find out a subject is on felony probation with full search and seizure conditions. Warrantless entry with no need for PC is sooooo nice!! :D

[webjeep]

I spent a few years out your way in when I was in the Corps and it's pretty scary and probably hard to believe, but I think that my jurisdiction is probably more screwed up liberal than Cali. Don't ask me how a socialist state can evolve in the foothills of Virginia, but believe me, it's here.

[LA Copper]

JD,
Are you saying that we now don't need reasonable suspicion for a parole/probation search? The last I heard, it was changed that we did need it. Or is that just for probation/parole officers and not municipal officers and deputys?

[jdlong]

JD,
Are you saying that we now don't need reasonable suspicion for a parole/probation search? The last I heard, it was changed that we did need it. Or is that just for probation/parole officers and not municipal officers and deputys?

LA Copper, here's the scoop from my District Attorney...and why we are conducting searches without any "reasonable suspicion". I won't say where I'm from in case the Feds get wind!! :D I'm in a small, rural county up north.

As you may know, in People vs. Reyes, the California Supreme Court ruled that absolutely no "reasonable suspicion" is needed for parole/probation searches. The basis for the ruling was to protect the public and keep our parolees and probationers "straight and honest" (that's the whole idea of probation and parole...is it not?) But of course, here in Cali, we had to give the rights back to the felons.


Our radical U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then reversed the position in People vs. Crawford. Crawford was very controversial because it stated that officers (police, S.O. Deputies, Probation, Parole) had to have "reasonable suspicion" that a parolee or probationer was continuing to engage in criminal activity (they never do that do they?) All hell broke loose when this opinion came out. Why the hell put a dirtbag on Probation or Parole then right?

In September, 2003, the 9th Circuit realized they may have really hand-cuffed all law enforcement agencies with their not so popular ruling. They stated they were going to review their decision in People vs. Crawford. That review has not been completed as of 2006. As a result, pending what they call en banc review, Crawford is no longer citable authority.

So...we then go back to People vs. Reyes. Green light on all Probation/Parole searches. That's how were doing it up here in the sticks anyway. :D Don't tell anyone!!

Here's where it might get sticky for Police Officers and Deputies...you suddenly realize that your probable cause stop and search may not have been so probable...you find some really nice dope...you're wondering if your 11377 H&S is going to stick...THEN, after the fact, you find out the dirtbag is on Probation or Parole with full search and seizure conditions. Woops...might be tough to explain on the stand (the PC portion anyway).

Clear as mud??? :D Be safe brother!! ;)

[LA Copper]

JD,
You are so right about the 9th Circuit. They have really come out with some really crazy rulings. It would seem that the 9th Circuit is run by nuts from the ACLU!

I certainly hope you are right and we can go back to doing what we were doing with these dirtbags. After all, they are dirtbags! If you hear anything else, please keep us updated. If you want to keep it on the QT, feel free to PM me. Thanks

[Five-0fromSoCal]

Doing them down here also. The way its supposed to be done. Thats why they give up their rights when they're released from jail.

[NewCenturion]

OH GAWD. The 9th Circuit Court, HQ in downtown San Francisco. My fingers have given out, couldn't possibly BEGIN to summarize the madness. Reviewing all of these posts, just like the ACLU mad UC Berserkley Dark Side Opponents. It goes back and forth just like the force my Jedi warriors...People v. Reyes tells me absolutely NOTHING, except that the HUGE prison population in California has managed to employ their family members as activists FAMOUSLY, and the press has become their willing prison b***h. I guess if half my family were in prison, I'd be lying on their behalf also...

[jdlong]

Doing them down here also. The way its supposed to be done. Thats why they give up their rights when they're released from jail.

Yep, we're doing them the old way until we hear otherwise as well. You're dead on Five-O...if you, Mr. Dirtbag, don't like losing your rights...here's a hint...don't commit crime and certainly don't take a Probation or Parole offer. Shut your mouth and do your time. It's just a matter of time before we see you again anyway. :D

[jdlong]

OH GAWD. The 9th Circuit Court, HQ in downtown San Francisco. My fingers have given out, couldn't possibly BEGIN to summarize the madness. Reviewing all of these posts, just like the ACLU mad UC Berserkley Dark Side Opponents. It goes back and forth just like the force my Jedi warriors...People v. Reyes tells me absolutely NOTHING, except that the HUGE prison population in California has managed to employ their family members as activists FAMOUSLY, and the press has become their willing prison b***h. I guess if half my family were in prison, I'd be lying on their behalf also...

Oh come on now New Centurion...be open minded!! :D The 9th Circuit is simply fighting for human rights. Our dirtbags are simply misunderstood. They just need a chance...and another one...and another one...and another one. There's nothing wrong with the fact that a large majority of my....ummmm...."clients" (that's what we're supposed to call them according to our officer sensitivity training) are ex-parolees now given another chance on felony probation. Hell, I have "clients" that are serving three to four grants of probation at the same time.

It's a pretty cool system. You can vacation in CDC...parole...violate...parole again...complete parole...commit crime...get felony probation...violate...more probation...violate...back to CDC...

But hey...I'm not bitter!!! :D

[FedCop]

Admittedly, I do not deal with these issues, but I thought it was term/condition of their parole/probation that they agreed to in order obtain that parole/probation. A type of pre-consent?

[jdlong]

Admittedly, I do not deal with these issues, but I thought it was term/condition of their parole/probation that they agreed to in order obtain that parole/probation. A type of pre-consent?

You're dead on FedCop. It is a term and condition of their Probation/Parole. That's what makes the 9th Circuit's ruling in People vs. Crawford so ridiculous. Why grant Probation or Parole if we then need "reasonable suspicion" to search? Last time I checked, you lose some rights when you decide to become a convicted felon?? :mad:

So, in my rural county, we're back to doing it the way it should be done...unless new case law comes out that states otherwise. Anytime, anywhere. My "reasonable suspicion" is the fact that you're a convicted felon and you signed a Court Order that states...

"You will subject person and property, including but not limited to residence, motor vehicle and place of business; to search and/or seizure at any time of the day or night by any law enforcement officer, with or without a search warrant and with or without reasonable or probable cause"

Does it get any clearer than that?? :D

[pdizzle]

I only wish we were doing it that way. My department maintains we need reasonable suspision or consent for a search- even if on probation/parole with s&s. :confused: Only in California.

[jdlong]

I only wish we were doing it that way. My department maintains we need reasonable suspision or consent for a search- even if on probation/parole with s&s. :confused: Only in California.

You're right brotther...only in California!! As I said in my prior posts...our dirtbags are just misunderstood. We just need to give them a chance! :D
Hope your Department allows you to search without worry soon. Until we see new case law, our DA has given us the green light on probation/parole searches. He's basing his decision on the old People vs. Reyes ruling. Be safe! ;)

[KY PO]

Oh come one guys...reasonable suspician is pretty lax. I mean, an annonymous tip can be enough....or even the offender acting suspicious or too nervous when you are doing your home check....I have never had a problem justifying reasonable suspician.

[jdlong]

Oh come one guys...reasonable suspician is pretty lax. I mean, an annonymous tip can be enough....or even the offender acting suspicious or too nervous when you are doing your home check....I have never had a problem justifying reasonable suspician.

I know, I know. It's a California thing!! You know our whacked out, liberal state!! As I said, our dirtbags are simply misunderstood! :D The People vs. Crawford ruling simply put the scare into some of our agencies out here. I'm very fortunate to work for a Chief and a District Attorney that understand what the following means...

"You will subject person and property, including but not limited to residence, motor vehicle, and place of business; to search and/or seizure at any time of day or night by any law enforcement officer, with or without a search warrant and with or without reasonable or probable cause"

Signed by you....dirtbag (I mean Probationer)...right below the Judge's signature. That's all the "reasonable suspicion" I need. :D

[PhilipCal]

JD, I'm one of those people who believe that one of the most effective coalitions today is the one between Probation/Parole Officers, and the rest of the LE Community. I'm retired from the Alabama Dept of Public Safety, and our P.O.s are in a different agency. However, they are armed, and possess full police authority. Man, I love Reyes vs. Calif, and I love the agreement the parolee must sign prior to release. I'm not an attorney, but my argument for the participation of P.D. and S.O. officers in searches and siezures would simply be that they are assisting the P.O. in the performance of his/her duties. Another point to be considered is the fact that the parolee at this point in his"career" has lost certain rights, among them the right to deal with the police, including P.O.s on his terms. Even here in rural Alabama we have heard of some of the absolutely ludicrous rulings from the 9th Circuit. Hope that Reyes vs. California survives the ACLU, Dudley Do-Right challenges it will most certainly face. Stay safe out there, and watch your six.

[jdlong]

JD, I'm one of those people who believe that one of the most effective coalitions today is the one between Probation/Parole Officers, and the rest of the LE Community. I'm retired from the Alabama Dept of Public Safety, and our P.O.s are in a different agency. However, they are armed, and possess full police authority. Man, I love Reyes vs. Calif, and I love the agreement the parolee must sign prior to release. I'm not an attorney, but my argument for the participation of P.D. and S.O. officers in searches and siezures would simply be that they are assisting the P.O. in the performance of his/her duties. Another point to be considered is the fact that the parolee at this point in his"career" has lost certain rights, among them the right to deal with the police, including P.O.s on his terms. Even here in rural Alabama we have heard of some of the absolutely ludicrous rulings from the 9th Circuit. Hope that Reyes vs. California survives the ACLU, Dudley Do-Right challenges it will most certainly face. Stay safe out there, and watch your six.

PhilipCal, I totally agree. I'm amazed that there are so many LE agencies across the nation that don't work hand in hand with their Probation and Parole Officers. Then again, I know that Probation and Parole Officers in many states are not armed and are not trained appropriately to work with other LE agencies. Not armed is ridiculous!! You couldn't pay me enough to enter the home of a convicted dirtbag with the intent of going 10-15 unarmed!! I doubt there's a Deputy or Officer that would go in unarmed either! Everyone we come in contact is the worst of the worst. We're armed here in Nor Cal and have full arrest powers as well. We work daily with our S.O. and PD brothers. We're assigned to multiple county task forces as well (NARC, Domestic Violence, Gang, etc.)

The real beauty of working together daily is the win-win situation for both Probation and our partner agencies. They provide us with very valuable "after hours" intel regarding our Probationers and Parolees, info we wouldn't get otherwise (can't beat the eyes and ears of CI's and patrol units). And, of course, they lick their chops when they find out a subject is on felony probation with full search and seizure!! No need for the Judge to sign to make entry!! Our dirtbags hate that!! :D And yeah, you're right, once you've become a convicted felon and you sign that Probation/Parole Order...you've lost many rights. Search and seizure anytime, anywhere, for any reason...that's how we play up here.

I'm very fortunate that my Probation Chief and our Sheriff and local PD Chiefs understand the value of working together. It would be great to see more like partnerships. All of us in LE would benefit!