US vs. Knights

¶ … Fourth Amendment, which restricts searches pursuant to a probation circumstance to those with a 'probationary' purpose, removes any wrongdoing in the case of United States v. Knights with regards to warrantless searches. Often times there exists a thin balance between safeguarding citizens and observing probationers. Any observation made by law enforcement that might causes suspicion of a probationer can then translate into reasonable inquiry and therefore make it legal to perform searches without a warrant.

Under the circumstances of the case, the respondent, Knights was living under precise probationary limitations that allowed law enforcement to conduct a search of his person regardless of warrants. Respondent came under suspicion after a vandalism spree occurred. A detective noticed the respondent and then searched and arrested him as a suspect. His summary probation was a result of a drug charge.

Because of this probation, and after he signed and agreed to submitting to any reasonable search, he forfeited his right to deny a search without a warrant by law enforcement. The problems stem from his suspicion after observation by law officers noted his friend, Simoneau dropped pipe bombs into the Napa River that could have facilitated acts of vandalism reported by Pacific Gas & Electric.

After detectives initiated surveillance and connected the explosive materials to the respondent, they were able to, while knowing the conditions of his probation, make a warrantless search of his property. When they did, they came upon the bomb making materials. Although it seems wrong to enter a house without a warrant, the detectives were right in performing the search because they knew the conditions of his probation and were aware of the Fourth Amendment limitations. 2.

Rule The Supreme Court of California disallowed this difference and sustained searches pursuant to the California probation condition "whether the purpose of the search is to monitor the probationer or to serve some other law enforcement purpose." (Karagiozis, 2005, p. 227). The courts decided certiorari, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001), to evaluate the constitutionality of warrantless searches made pursuant public California probation state.

Because the respondent generated reasonable suspicion under surveillance by law enforcement, and responded forfeited his rights to a warrantless search after his drug charges, the detectives were well within their rights under the Fourth Amendment to enact the search. The Courts therefore reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals as well as remanded the cause for further proceedings not changeable with this judgment. 3. Analysis The respondent's disagrees to which the "probationary" purpose restriction "follows from our decision in Griffin v. Wisconsin,".

which was a "special needs" system, in which, under the law of the state of Wisconsin, "applied to all Wisconsin probationers" (Carper, Mietus, & West, 1999, p. 303). To shift perspective, the respondent contended, any such search committed without warrant must be done so solely after monitoring and witnessing the probationer committing a probation violation. This is not under the Fourth Amendment as the Fourth Amendment covers any suspicious activity that would then warrant a search, regardless of whether or not the probationer committed a violation against his or her probation.

The Court used the definition of "reasonableness" to include the state's interest in, "apprehending violators of the criminal law, thereby protecting potential victims of criminal enterprise, may therefore justifiably focus on probationers in a way that it does not on the ordinary citizen" (Palmer, 1977, p. 805). In essence, the respondent provided reasonable doubt and warranted suspicion. Because of his actions, and the actions of his friend, detectives were under the justification that what they were doing was lawful and acceptable according to the Court.

Many times convicted criminals do not understand what they forfeit when they agree or sign something after conviction or sentencing. When Knights faced a drug charge that led to his relinquishing his rights as a citizen to deny a search, his suspicious activity warranted a search regardless of his potential violation of parole or not. In essence, his defense is futile as it proves nothing to support his argument as everything was previously explained or known before.

Perhaps if the detectives would have searched him without witnessing any suspicious activity, the respondent would have had a valid defense. But since his friend was observed and everything could be connected to Knights, there was no real reason to deny a search.