Decision here.
Mabry was on parole in Kansas, and subject to standard parole conditions. These included a provision that he was required to seek permission to leave the state, and another that he (and his residence) were subject to search by a parole officer or designated law enforcement officer. Whilst so restricted, Mabry was contacted in Utah by a highway patrol officer. He was the passenger in a car which was transporting a lot of marijuana, and although the driver was arrested, Mabry was not.
When Mabry's PO learned about this, he issued an order for Mabry's arrest. A parole officer and a couple of cops went to the last address that Mabry had listed as his residence (which was his girlfriend's house). She answered the door and told them that Mabry was in the shower, but then they saw him walk into the room behind her. They made entry, arrested Mabry, and then searched the house. During the search, they found a gun in the basement.
Mabry was charged with possessing said gun, and moved to suppress it as the fruit of an illegal search. The district court denied his motion, so he pled guilty and then appealed.
The Tenth Circuit held that because parolees have a diminished (or even absent) expectation of privacy, and because the government has an overwhelming need to supervised parolees to prevent them from committing more crimes, the search was valid under the totality of the circumstances. And although a search of a parolee's home must be reasonable in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment, that kind of search does not have to be based on probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) if it is specifically authorized by state law. In Kansas' case, the law requires reasonable suspicion of a parole violation in order to justify this kind of search. The fact that Mabry was contacted out of state without his permission (and in a vehicle involved in drug trafficking) established reasonable suspicion.
The denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, and Mabry's conviction stands.
No comments:
Post a Comment