SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECIDES WHETHER
SEARCH OF PAROLEE WAS REASONABLE
UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
April 2015
For duplication & redistribution of this article, please contact Public Agency Training Council by phone at 1.800.365.0119.
PATC Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute 5235 Decatur Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46241
Article Source: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2015_us_v_white.shtml
Printable Version: http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/2015_us_v_white.pdf
©2015 Brian S. Batterton, Attorney, PATC Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute
(LLRMI.com)
On March 25, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Whitei, in which they
decided the issue of whether a warrantless, non-consensual search of a parolee on a condition of parole is
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The relevant facts of White, taken directly from the case, are as
follows:
The Illinois Department of Corrections issued a warrant on March 29, 2011 to arrest White for violating
his parole. The warrant was based on two discoveries. First, one of two victims from a shooting a week
earlier had identified White as the shooter. Second, earlier that month a parole officer had found in
White's bedroom the packaging for a Glock .40 caliber magazine. Two days after the warrant was
issued, the police received a tip that White was driving a green sport utility vehicle.
That tip led the officers to the home of White's cousin, Tawana Williams. They knew she drove such a
car. Williams told the police that she and White had been together earlier that day and that White had
placed his gym bag in her car. The police searched White's bag and found a .40 caliber Glock handgun
loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition. White was later arrested and charged with possessing a firearm
and ammunition as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).ii
White filed a motion to suppress the weapons found during the search of his bag which was in Tawana’s car.
The trial court denied the motion, and White was convicted at trial by a jury. He then appealed the denial of his
motion to suppress.
The issue on appeal was whether the officers violated White’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched
his bag which he left in Tawana Williams’ car. While the court of appeals noted that the reasonableness of a
search under the Fourth Amendment is determined under United States Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals precedent, there is a state law question because the reasonableness is determined, in large
part, by the extent that the state law on parole conditions diminishes White’s legitimate expectation of privacy.
As such, the court examined Illinois case law regarding probation and parole searches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------©2015 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2015_us_v_white.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/
The lead Illinois case on point, and controlling in White’s case, is the People v. Absheriii. The Seventh Circuit
stated:
After Absher, an Illinois probationer's agreement to consent to suspicionless searches is best
understood has having the effect of waiving his Fourth Amendment rights. See id. at 668.iv
The court then noted that while Absher refers to probationers, it is still instructive to White’s case (as a
parolee).
Further, to determine if the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the court also looked to
Samson v. Californiav, the United States Supreme Court case regarding searches of parolees. Regarding
Samson, the Seventh Circuit stated:
To determine the reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment, we look at the totality of
the circumstances, balancing the degree to which the search intrudes on individual liberty and the
degree to which it promotes legitimate governmental interests. Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295,
300 (1999); Narducci v. Moore, 572 F.3d 313, 319 (7th Cir. 2009). Balancing those interests, the
Supreme Court in Samson upheld a warrantless and suspicionless search of a parolee. There, the
Court analyzed a parole condition substantively identical to the condition requiring White to "consent to
a search of your person, property, or residence under your control." Compare 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(10) and
People v. Wilson, 885 N.E.2d 1033, 1041-42 (Ill. 2008), with Samson, 547 U.S. at 846.
Without deciding whether that consent led to "a complete waiver" of Fourth Amendment rights, see
Samson, 547 U.S. at 852 n.3, the Court nonetheless held that, in balancing the relevant interests, the
search was reasonable. It observed first that the government has an "overwhelming interest" in
supervising parolees because they are more likely to commit crimes and must be reintegrated into the
community. Id. at 853. Given that interest, the Court concluded that a "condition of release can so
diminish or eliminate a released prisoner's reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless
search by a law enforcement officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 847. Thus, under
Samson, even if White did not actually consent to the bag's search, his significantly diminished
expectation of privacy balanced against the government's substantial law-enforcement interest
renders the search reasonable and therefore lawful.vi [emphasis added]
Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, as White’s other arguments moot due this
holding.
________________________
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of
a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to
constitute legal advice on a specific case.
i
th
No. 13-2943 (7 Cir. Decided March 25, 2015)
Id. at 2
iii
950 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. 2011)
iv
White at 8
ii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------©2015 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2015_us_v_white.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/
v
vi
547 U.S. 112 (2011)
White at 8-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------©2015 Article published in the free PATC / LLRMI E-Newsletter: 800.365.0119
Link to Article online: http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2015_us_v_white.shtml
http://www.patc.com | http://www.llrmi.com | http://www.fsti.com | http://www.school-training.com | http://www.patctech.com/