Justices Uphold Broad Searches of Probationers

Police officers do not need a warrant to search the home or car of anyone on probation or parole whom they suspect of committing new crimes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 9-0 decision, the court upheld the search by Napa County, Calif., police of a suspected utility company saboteur who was on probation for another offense. The justices said the government’s interest in “protecting potential victims” of crime outweighed a criminal’s right to privacy.

Unlike most states, California requires probationers and parolees to consent to routine searches as a condition of avoiding or leaving prison. The court Monday upheld those searches in cases where police have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and did not address the broader question of whether such individuals could be searched without cause.

Nationwide, about 3.8 million convicted criminals were on probation last year, the Justice Department said.

There are 332,000 adults on probation in California, according to state figures, and this number is likely to go up significantly. Under Proposition 36, which took effect last year, adults who are arrested for minor drug possession charges are to be given probation, not jail time.

The state contends that police are free to search the cars or the homes of people on probation. But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconstitutional the surprise search of a Napa man’s apartment. It ruled that with the exception of probation officers, law enforcement agents must have a search warrant from a judge before they enter a home.

Three years ago, Mark Knights was on probation for a minor drug offense. Officers had been investigating a series of vandalism incidents involving a PG&E; power transformer and Pacific Bell telephone cables. In one incident, the Napa County Airport was shut down by arson that caused $1.5 million in damage.

Knights had drawn attention to himself by feuding with PG&E; over his bills, and at dawn on June 3, 1998, Napa County sheriff’s deputies burst into his apartment and found him in bed. They also found detonators, ammunition, liquid chemicals, bolt cutters and a padlock stamped “PG&E.;”

He was charged in federal court with conspiracy to commit arson and other offenses. After the 9th Circuit threw out the evidence from the search, the Bush administration and California’s attorney general appealed to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said probationers may lose “some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.” The government also had good reason to be wary of these criminals, he said, citing a Justice Department study stating that 43% of felons placed on probation were rearrested for a felony within three years.

“We therefore hold that the warrantless search of Knights, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, was reasonable within the meaning of the 4th Amendment,” Rehnquist said in U.S. vs. Knights, 00-1260.

In one sense, the Supreme Court decision was only a narrow victory for the state. Everyone agreed that the Napa police had a “reasonable suspicion” of his involvement before they searched Knights. For that reason, Rehnquist said the high court did not need to rule on the harder question of whether police could search a probationer if they had no suspicion that he or she was violating the law.

Still, “this is a good decision for law enforcement,” said California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who expressed satisfaction that “a unanimous Supreme Court has eliminated the lower-court standard.”

Michael McMahon, a Ventura County public defender, said that he too was generally pleased with the outcome. “It could have been a lot worse. California law enforcement says they can search anyone [on probation] at any time, but this sets a much narrower rule,” said McMahon, who had filed a brief in the case on behalf of the California Public Defenders Assn.

California courts have long upheld warrantless searches of probationers. If these convicted criminals do not want to consent to searches, they can turn down the state’s offer of probation and go to prison, the state judges said in a 1987 ruling.

McMahon, the public defender, believes Monday’s ruling may persuade the state judges to put some limits on these searches.

However, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, a pro-law enforcement organization, applauded the ruling.

“This decision is important because it recognizes that public safety, rather than the privacy rights of criminals, should be the government’s chief concern when it comes to conditions of probation,” the group said.

As a practical matter, the requirement for “reasonable suspicion” is not a hindrance for police, said Kent Scheidegger, an attorney for the group. “First, it doesn’t take much to have individualized suspicion. And the police aren’t going to search many people unless they have some individualized suspicion.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court took up an appeal from former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and other Clinton administration officials to decide whether government leaders can be sued personally for lies and cover-ups.

Jennifer Harbury, an American lawyer, believes that the CIA played a role in killing her husband, a Guatemalan rebel, and that the Clinton administration concealed the truth from her.

Christopher and the other 25 named officials said they should be immune from her lawsuit, but a U.S. appeals court here said her claims, if true, deserve a trial (Christopher vs. Harbury, 01-394).