Searches -- Parolees

All officers know that parolees must normally sign an "agreement" to avoid incarceration. The agreement usually contains language that permits searches of parolees and their property.

There have been some changes in the "rules" related to these searches in the recent years.

Until relatively recently, Illinois courts did not allow searches of parolees by law enforcement without "reasonable suspicion."

Recently however, both the United States and Illinois Supreme Courts have changed the rules on searches of parolees and their property.

The United States Supreme Court (USSC) in Samson v United States held that officers may search a parolee based solely on his condition of release. The court ruled that basically a parolee was not a lot different than an inmate as it related to his / her expectations of privacy -- and that the conditions of release then determined the parolee's rights v. the officers' powers.

In California that condition of release included the clause that parolees may be searched at any by parole officers or law enforcement officers. Because Samson accepted this term by his signature, his expectations of privacy were significantly diminished such that officers could search him with any theory.

The rationale for this rule was that over 2/3 of parolees are returned to prison. That figure was / is so high that the government has a legitimate purpose in ensuring that parolees do not possess contraband or weapons.

After Samson, the Illinois Supreme Court was faced with the case of People v Wilson, 885 NE2d 1033 (2008), which presented a similar situation related to the suspicionless search of a parolee's premises.

In Wilson, the parolee "agreed" to the search of person, property or residence as a condition of his release.

Subsequently, officers searched the parolee's home and discovered cocaine and heroin.

The Illinois Supreme Court, based on Samson, held that the evidence was admissible.

For those in AZ -- the 9th Circuit, in the same facts as Wilson ruled that the evidence was admissible for the same reasons. US v Lopez, 474 F3d 1208 (9th Cir 2007)

Warning: these cases give officers a lot of power -- abuse the rule, lose the rule.