Is It Reasonable? A Legal Review of Warrantless Searches of Probationers and Parolees

Abstract

Probationers and parolees have a reduced expectation of privacy. In most states, they are subject to searches by their supervising probation or parole officer without prior notice or cause. However, for law enforcement officers, their ability to search a probationer or parolee can be constrained by the need to articulate probable cause or a reasonable suspicion. This legal review examines federal and state laws, providing guidance on when law enforcement officers can search probationers/parolees, and whether it requires probable cause, a reasonable suspicion, or the presence of the supervising probation/parole officer. Results of the legal review should prove especially informative for agencies engaged in multiagency partnerships.

Working with the Police: a Positive Outlook from a National Sample of Probation and Parole Officers

“…Partnerships with police have been viewed, at least in part, as a means of relieving some of the burdens of probation work by allowing and encouraging police to supplement standard probation supervision, especially in regards to high-risk populations. Indeed, police have a greater presence in the community and can be more proactive when made aware of the probation or parole population in their community (Turner et al, 2016). Such partnerships also coincide well with the pulling levers framework espoused by Kennedy (1997) and the mounting empirical support for focused deterrence strategies in policing (Braga et al, 2018).…”

“…While stalking horse concerns were not significantly associated with officers support for partnerships, it may still be a pertinent issue for some jurisdictions. Across the two items contained in the scale, about 18-34% agreed or strongly agreed there were legal concerns about law enforcement's involvement in home visits as well as their use of shared information to engage in warrantless searches of probationers and parolees in the community (Turner et al, 2016). Further legal guidance is available for agencies that continue to have concerns in this regard (Adelman, 2002;Drapela & Lutze, 2009;Jermstad, 2002a;Jermstad, 2002b;Paulsen & del Carmen, 2001;Matz et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2016).…”

“…Legally speaking, this coordination also provides law enforcement with greater flexibility in terms of warrantless searches (Turner et al, 2016), though some concern has been voiced this may inadvertently lead to abusive enforcement practices (a.k.a., stalking horse) ).…”

“…Yet recent surveys of chiefs and practitioners in the US have not found mission distortion to be of considerable concern . Likewise, while concerns have been expressed that police may abuse partnerships by using them as a means to harass probationers or parolees with warrantless searches (Turner et al, 2016), a recent survey of probation and parole chiefs and executives found the majority did not perceive it to be a pertinent issue .…”

Hiring and Training Requirements for Correctional Officers: A Statutory Analysis

“…After identifying whether states had statutes for CO hiring and/or training, further analyses were conducted to determine how states differed in their required qualifications and specified training. This examination was completed by way of a statute analytic methodology that has been previously adopted in criminal justice research (Burton, Latessa, & Barker, 1992; Purkiss, Kifer, Hemmens, & Burton, 2003; Turner, Hemmens, & Matz, 2014; Yoo, Mei, Hemmens, & Stohr, 2015).…”