Diminishes Privacy Expectation for Those in Pretrial Intervention Programs

Probation officers legitimately executed a warrantless search, based on reasonable suspicion, of the house of a man in a pretrial intervention program.

 

Castillo v. United States, 2016 BL 77940, 11th Cir., No. 13-11757, 3/15/16

     The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit used the same rationale that is used to justify warrantless searches of probationers and parolees; namely, the state's strong interest in rehabilitating persons who enter pretrial intervention.

     The man had a diminished expectation of privacy in his home because he had entered into a pre-trial intervention program as a part of a deferred prosecution agreement. Furthermore, the court rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to contest the search, because the officers acted after receiving an solid tip which led to "reasonable suspicion" that the defendant possessed a firearm, which was a violation of his deferred prosecution agreement.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Castillo_v_United_States_No_1311757_2016_BL_77940_11th_Cir_Mar_15?1459453775

No Need For Reasonable Suspicion for Search of Probationer

Agents of law enforcement are not required to cite reasonable suspicion before searching a probationer under standard probation.

 

United States v. Tessier, 2016 BL 45438, 6th Cir., No. 15-5284, 2/18/16

     The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, as long as the standard probation form that consents to searches "without a warrant" and "at any time", law enforcement officials do not need reasonable suspicion to search a probationer.

     Probationers still have some protections, but are not entitled to the same absolute liberties, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, as people not on probation. In this case, officers were acting within a operation searching the residences of every known sex offender in the county. The court used a "totality of the circumstances" analysis and said that because the search conditions in this case advanced the two primary goals of probation - rehabilitation and protecting society from future criminal violations -  the intrusion was reasonable.

     The court said that it did not need to answer the greater question of "whether a search of a probationer's home that has no legitimate law enforcement or probationary purpose-such as a search with no purpose other than to harass the probationer-would be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Tessier_No_155284_2016_BL_45438_6th_Cir_Feb_18_20?1457129207