About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

51 UCLA L. Rev. 1703 (2003-2004)
Lost in Probation: Contrasting the Treatment of Probationary Search Agreements in California and Federal Courts

handle is hein.journals/uclalr51 and id is 1733 raw text is: LOST IN PROBATION: CONTRASTING THE TREATMENT OF PROBATIONARY SEARCH AGREEMENTS IN CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL COURTS Marc R. Lewis In the administration of a state or federal probation system, a criminal defendant who is placed on probation often signs a consent-to-search agreement. This agreement contains a clause in which the probationer consents to suspicionless, warrantless searches of his person and residence for the duration of his probationary term. Searches pursuant to these agreements have generated a number of cases challenging their constitutionality. Specifically, several defendants who have been searched pursuant to their probation agreement and later prosecuted have invoked the Fourth Amendment, arguing that the exclusionary rule demands that such evidence be deemed inadmissible in a subsequent criminal trial. But federal and state courts have failed to provide a consistent legal analysis in deciding such cases. On one hand, California courts hold that consent-to-search agreements eliminate a probationer's privacy protection, and the exclusionary rule challenge typically fails. On the other hand, federal courts reason that such agreements constitute only one factor in the expectation of privacy balancing test, and thus hold that searches pursuant to these agreements must meet some reduced level of constitutional scrutiny. In this Comment, the author explores this level of scrutiny in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Knights, and argues that federal courts should adopt the more logical and straightforward California approach. IN TRO DU CT ION ........................................................................................................... 1705 I. THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF PROBATION ..................................................................... 1707 A . B ackground .................................................................................................. 1707 B. Purposes and G oals of Probation .................................................................. 1708 II. LEGAL BACKGROUND: PROBATIONERS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ............. 1710 A . The Exclusionary Rule ................................................................................. 1710 * Senior Editor, UCLA Law Review, Volume 51. J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2004; B.S., UCLA, 2000. I thank first the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who made this Comment possible: Susan Knight and Laurel Beeler for encouraging me to explore this area of criminal procedure, and George Cardona for his tremendous patience and meticulous edits. I am also extremely indebted to several members of the UCLA Law Review: Tracy Casadio for refining my arguments, Beth McLain for her support during the revising process, and Benjamin Lichtman, Matt Brown, and Pei Pei Tan for their assistance in publication. Finally, I thank Jeanne, Rob, and Kristen Lewis for their generosity and guidance, and Emily, my most careful editor, for her patient love and support. 1703

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most