Circuit clarifies search and seizure test for parolees

This case allows the Court of Appeals to clarify the rules guiding searches and seizures of parolees who are still under supervision by the state. The Court ultimately says the parole officers were allowed to search a parolee's house, where they found guns and narcotics.

The case is United States v. Braggs, issued on July 13. Following the search, the government brought drug trafficking and firearms charges against Braggs. But the district court suppressed this evidence under the Fourth Amendment, finding that the parole officers lacked reasonable suspicion to search the house, as the "vague, anonymous tip" that the officers relied on was not enough to support the search. The Second Circuit reverses, and the charges against Braggs are reinstated.

The Court of Appeals (Wesley, Sack and Menashi) notes that this case involves two strands of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that the courts appear to have "either muddled or overlooked as of late." One strand involves the exclusionary rule in federal prosecutions. In those cases, the government needs a reliable basis to search your home. Anonymous tips are not usually deemed reliable. The other strand involves parole searches "for the purpose of monitoring the parolees under their charge." The exclusionary rule is more strict than parole searches, the Court of Appeals reminds us. That's because the "special needs" doctrine governing parole searches says "a search of a parolee is permissible so long as it is reasonably related to the parole officer's duties." These duties include "the supervision, rehabilitation, and societal reintegration of the parolee, as well as assuring that the community is not harmed by the parolee's being at large."

The search in this case was legal because it satisfied the special needs doctrine. The search was reasonably related to the performance of the parole officers' duties. Once the officer got the anonymous tip about Bragg's possible gun possession, a clear violation of Bragg's parole conditions, 'he and his team were constitutionally permitted to search the house to determine whether Braggs was complying with the relevant condition." While the search might have violated the Fourth Amendment in a non-parole circumstance, then, it was legal in this context. The criminal charges against Braggs are therefore reinstated.