Parole Seaches [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Underdog

03-06-2003, 12:26 AM

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has done it again. They've ruled that a parole search conducted by the FBI was a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the search was not supported by reasonable suspicion. This is despite the fact that the parolee had agreed to searches as a condition of his parole.

Although I expect this case to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, officers within the Ninth Circuit should not conduct parole or probation searches unless they are supported by reasonable suspicion. Officers throughout the remainder of the U.S. should probably adhere to this rule as well as the Supreme Court's exact language in U.S. v. Knights tends to support this conclusion. Hopefully, the Ninth Circuit's decision will be overturned.

Here is the summary provided by Findlaw.com and a link to the case if anyone is interested:

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING

US v. CRAWFORD, No. 01-50633 (9th Cir. March 05, 2003)
A search of a home without reasonable suspicion, although pursuant
to a parole condition authorizing such searches, violated the Fourth
Amendment.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:

[PDF File]
<a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0150633p.pdf" target="_blank">http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0150633p.pdf</a>

Mike Tx

03-06-2003, 05:37 AM

The law protects criminals more than me. But I always new that which is why I have little respect for the law.

retired

03-06-2003, 10:49 AM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
The law protects criminals more than me. But I always new that which is why I have little respect for the law.<hr /></blockquote>The Bill of Rights is designed to restrict government abuse, ensure your freedoms, not protect criminals.

IPDBrad

03-06-2003, 12:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Underdog:
This is despite the fact that the parolee had agreed to searches as a condition of his parole.

<hr /></blockquote>That okay, just reject the parole and throw them all back in jail, 8 to a cell.

I am glad I live in the Midwest, I can't stand the 9th.

HPDEXP1061

03-06-2003, 02:18 PM

I have said it once and i will say it again... the 9th circuit is USELESS!!!!

retired

03-06-2003, 08:35 PM

I can't get the link to work to read the case, and in fact, I can't access the case on any legal site. Anyone else have this problem?

Underdog

03-06-2003, 11:31 PM

The case is in Adobe format. If you don't have the program, you might need to download it.

retired

03-07-2003, 12:05 AM

Underdog,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Underdog:
The case is in Adobe format. If you don't have the program, you might need to download it.<hr /></blockquote>I have adobe acrobat reader, and still can't download it. I must be doing something wrong.

Deputy757

03-07-2003, 11:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
<hr /></blockquote>The Bill of Rights is designed to restrict government abuse, ensure your freedoms, not protect criminals.

Yes, that's what it was originally intended to do. However, the (mis)interpretations of the BOR by sleazebag lawyers over hundreds of years has left us in the situation that Mike describes.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Underdog:
<hr /></blockquote>Although I expect this case to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, officers within the Ninth Circuit should not conduct parole or probation searches unless they are supported by reasonable suspicion. Officers throughout the remainder of the U.S. should probably adhere to this rule as well as the Supreme Court's exact language in U.S. v. Knights tends to support this conclusion.

Just curious, if SCOTUS has already ruled similarly in US v Knight, why do you think they will reverse the 9th circuit? (Except for the fact that they are the most reversed COA)
Sounds like, for once, the 9th circuit issued a ruling that was in concurrence with SCOTUS! That's not to say that I agree with it!

Underdog

03-07-2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757:
"Just curious, if SCOTUS has already ruled similarly in US v Knight, why do you think they will reverse the 9th circuit?"

I read the U.S. v. Knights decision. My feeling is that the Supreme Court looked at the facts in this one case and decided that this probation search was not unreasonable because it was supported by reasonable supsicion. I don't believe that they have yet ruled on the larger question of whether parole or probation searches not supported by reasonable suspicion are in violation of the 4th.

My feeling is that the Ninth Circuit is opposed to all parole and probation searches. In the present case, I think that the judges latched onto the only language they could find within the U.S. v. Knights opinion that might allow them to overturn convictions based on parole or probation searches. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of parole/probation searches in general, this case would give them the opportunity to do so.

Deputy757

03-08-2003, 03:41 AM

Gotcha! I know that about 6 or 7 years ago, probation and parole officers were able to search anywhere one of their charges was calling home...even if it was a hotel room. Now, they have telling us that they need RS to do so. Perhaps this is why!

Frank Booth

03-08-2003, 04:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have adobe acrobat reader, and still can't download it. I must be doing something wrong. <hr /></blockquote>I had the same problem once, and found I could get it to work if I downloaded it to my computer first and then opened it. I think I got a window that said "open" or "download". Now it seems to be working on my computer automatically. I think it started to work after the last couple WindowsXP updates I did.

retired

03-08-2003, 11:11 AM

Frank,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Frank Booth:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have adobe acrobat reader, and still can't download it. I must be doing something wrong. <hr /></blockquote>I had the same problem once, and found I could get it to work if I downloaded it to my computer first and then opened it. I think I got a window that said "open" or "download". Now it seems to be working on my computer automatically. I think it started to work after the last couple WindowsXP updates I did.<hr /></blockquote>I just downloaded the 5.0.01 update to 5.0 and it worked. I have XP, and maybe all I needed the update.

notoriouspig409

03-18-2003, 01:29 AM

We've had the same issues going on in Georgia for some time. In my area, defendants can plea or be sentenced to "the seven special conditions" in a probated sentence, which include waiver of 4th ammendment rights to search.

It used to be where any leo could search such a probationer at any time. That was eventually modified to include that a probation officer had to be present and last year was further modified to include reasonable articulable suspicion. I guess things were just working too well.

Additionally, one would think that parole guidelines would be more stringent than probation, but it has always been the case in my area that we got a helluva lot more cooperation from probation than parole.

When I worked dope about 10-12 years ago, on slow nights, we used to pull about 8 or 10 probationers with conditions and go conduct searches. 8 times outta 10 we would catch them dirty and either case them or flip them on sources, depending on the amount. There's no arguing that the tightening up of these guidelines by liberal judges has taken a useful tool away from law enforcement.

xrezrunner

03-19-2003, 02:03 PM

My buds in cali have been telling me about this for awhile.....I thought it was great, but I also knew this (caselaw) would happen if someone challenged it.

Bill R

03-19-2003, 04:13 PM

I guess the next step would be that cause is required to search cells. :rolleyes: