PRIOR TO THE BRADLEY CASE, COURTS HAVE PERMITTED A PAROLE OFFICER TO SUBJECT PAROLEES TO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES UNDER REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PAROLE CONDITIONS OF GEORGE BRADLEY ALLOWED THE PAROLE OFFICER TO VISIT HIS HOME OR PLACE OF WORK, BUT DID NOT SPECIFY SEARCHES. ACTING ON AN INFORMANT'S TIP, THE PAROLE OFFICER SEARCHED BRADLEY'S APARTMENT AND FOUND A LOADED FIREARM. BRADLEY APPEALED HIS CONSEQUENT CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SEARCH WAS UNLAWFUL. THE COURT RULED THAT HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND COMMENTED THAT THE STANDARD OF CAUSE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT FOR A PAROLEE NEED NOT BE AS RIGOROUS AS FOR AN ORDINARY CITIZEN. SOME COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT THE PAROLEE AND PAROLE OFFICER HAVE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE THE PAROLEE TECHNICALLY REMAINS IN CUSTODY AND THE PAROLE OFFICER HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY. OTHER DECISIONS HAVE PLACED THE PAROLEE'S STATUS CLOSER TO THAT OF AN ORDINARY CITIZEN THAT AN INMATE, BUT HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED PAROLEE'S RIGHTS. SUPREME COURT RULINGS ON WARRANTLESS ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS TO CRIMINAL LAW ARE DISCUSSED. IN LATTA V. FITZHARRIS, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANALOGIZED PAROLEE SEARCHES TO ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES, STATING THAT PAROLEES ARE SSUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS AND EXPECT A DIMINISHED DEGREE OF PRIVACY. THE STATE ALSO HAS AN INTEREST IN CONDUCTING UNANNOUNCED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE BRADLEY COURT REJECTED THIS ANALOGY AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP THEORY. IT NOTED THAT ABUSES OF DISCRETION ARE BETTER PREVENTED BY PRIOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL THAN JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER THE FACT. THE BRADLEY DECISION AGREES WITH ANOTHER RECENT SUPREME COURT OPINION AND IS LIKELY TO INFLUENCE NEW POLICIES CONCERNING PAROLEE RIGHTS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MJM)