U.S. v. Carter, (case no. 08-00031) (N.D. Fla. April 27, 2009)

The defendant was on probation for felony battery and possession of cocaine when his probation officer suspected he was again involved in criminal conduct. The probation officer planned a warrantless search of the defendant’s townhome during which evidence of crack cocaine and a firearm were discovered, leading to his prosecution. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was not supported by probable cause. The district court denied the motion; and the defendant pled guilty to the two charges but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

The defendant argued that his fourth amendment right was violated because the search was not predicated on probable cause. Specifically, he argued that being a probationer does not subject him to searches based on reasonable suspicion alone. Rather, there must be some condition of probation that reduces a probationer’s expectation of privacy in the object of the search.

The Eleventh Circuit applied a balancing test set forth in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587 (2001) which determines the reasonableness of a search “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300, 199 S. Ct. 1297, 1300 (1999)). The court balanced the defendant’s privacy interest against the government’s interest and held that the defendant’s privacy interest was reduced by the condition of his probation which required him to submit to home visits by a probation officer. The court stated that, on the other hand, the government has a high interest in preventing drug and violence-related crimes-especially since this defendant has a history of drug and violence-related felonies. Therefore, the court concluded that search of the defendant’s home was permissible.