skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 31656 Find in a Library
Title: SEARCH AND SEIZURE RIGHTS OF PAROLEES AND PROBATIONERS IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Journal: FORDHAM LAW REVIEW  Volume:44  Issue:3  Dated:(DECEMBER 1975)  Pages:617636
Author(s): J S WILLIAMSON
Corporate Author: Fordham University
United States of America
Date Published: 1975
Page Count: 20
Sponsoring Agency: Fordham University
Bronx, NY 10458
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS NOTE EXPLORES THE DEVELOPING CASE LAW IN THIS AREA AS REFLECTED BY THE TWO 1975 COMPANION CASES OF LATTA V. FITZHARRIS AND UNITED STATES V. CONSUELO-GONZALEZ.
Abstract: IN LATTA, THE COURT UTILIZING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TEST OF REASONABLENESS AND ANALOGIZING PAROLE INSPECTION SEARCHES TO ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES NOT REQUIRING WARRANTS, UPHELD THE REVOCATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S PAROLE AND SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION ON A DRUG POSSESSION CHARGE, BASED ON EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM A WARRANTLESS PAROLE OFFICER SEARCH. IN CONSUELO-GONZALEZ, WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ON PROBATION, THE COURT HELD THAT A SEARCH BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WAS UNREASONABLE AND THAT THE EVIDENCE SEIZED AS A RESULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BY THE TRIAL COURT BOTH DECISIONS WERE BASED ON A RECOGNITION AND BALANCING THE PROBATION/PAROLE OFFICER'S SPECIAL SUPERVISORY AND VISITATION POWERS (WHICH, IT WAS HELD, DID NOT EXTEND TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS) AND THE PAROLEE'S/PROBATIONER'S RIGHT TO PROTECT HIS PERSONAL PRIVACY. THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT THE BLURRING OF PAROLE/PROBATION OFFICER AND POLICE OFFICER ROLES MAKES THE PAROLE/PROBATION OFFICER'S SEARCH DUTIES SEEM MORE PUNITIVE AND LESS RECONSTRUCTIVE AND CAN NEITHER ENCOURAGE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE PAROLEE/PROBATIONER NOR FURTHER HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS PAROLE/PROBATION OFFICER. SHE SUGGESTS THAT BEFORE THERE CAN BE AGREEMENT ON WHAT IS REASONABLE IN ANY PAROLE/PROBATION SEARCH, THERE MUST BE AGREEMENT ON THE ROLE OF THE PROBATION/ PAROLE OFFICER AND CLARIFICATION OF THE NATURE OF THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT OFFICER AND THE PAROLEE/PROBATIONER. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)
Index Term(s): California; Judicial decisions; Parole conditions; Parolees rights; Probation conditions; Probationers rights; Search and seizure; Search and seizure laws
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=31656

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.