Can My Probation Officer Search My House Without a Warrant?

Probation Searches in Pennsylvania

Can A Probation Officer Search My House While I Am On Probation or Parole? 

An issue that frequently comes up when litigating motions to suppress in drug and weapons cases is whether the police or probation department need a search warrant to search the house of a someone who is on probation or parole. In general, both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions require law enforcement officers to get a search warrant before conducting a search of a private residence. However, there are a few limited exceptions to this rule, and two of those exceptions apply to people who are on probation or parole.

Probation Officers May Conduct Limited Home Visits

First, a probation or parole officer may conduct a limited home visit of a probationer’s home without a warrant as part of the conditions of probation or parole. The probationer may be lawfully compelled to show the probation officer around the house, and if the officer sees anything incriminating in plain view, these items can be used against the probationer. Evidence such as drugs, guns, or other contraband may be used to establish violations of the terms of the supervision or to bring new criminal charges.

Probation Officers Do Not Need A Search Warrant - But They Do Need Reasonable Suspicion

Second, the probation officer may conduct a full search of a probationer’s house where the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there may be contraband in the house. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, and the officer is not first required to obtain a warrant before conducting the search. Instead, the officer must simply get authorization from a supervisor. Although probation officers may use these exceptions either to conduct a home visit or search based on reasonable suspicion, they are not allowed to act as a “stalking horse” for or at the direction of the police department or other law enforcement agencies who wish to use the probation as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search.

For both types of searches, probation officers may typically search the entire house. The search is not limited to the room in which the probationer stays. This is because the owner of the house will generally sign a release prior to the probationer or parolee being allowed to stay in the house. In some cases, however, it may be possible to challenge the scope of an overly broad search with respect to a defendant other than the probationer. 

Recent Caselaw on Probation and Parole Searches in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently considered these exceptions in the case of Commonwealth v. Parker, 2016 Pa Super 280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). In Parker, the Superior Court upheld the ability for probation officers to search a probationer’s home without any prior allegation of wrongdoing by the probationer, reversing the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress crack cocaine which was allegedly found in Mr. Parker’s home.

When Parker was released from custody on a prior case, he agreed to the standard terms and conditions of probation to which many defendants must agree in counties through Pennsylvania. Specifically, he agreed to allow his probation officer to visit his home at any time to confirm compliance with the conditions of supervision. He also agreed that he would not possess any contraband and that he would permit the officer to search his home and vehicle based upon reasonable suspicion that contraband could be found.

The case began when probation officers arrived at Parker’s home to conduct a home visit. Upon entering the house, they noticed, “apparently in plain view, clear, empty, corner-cut baggies; cigar packages, which were opened and discarded on the floor; and small rubber bands.” The officers believed from past experiences that such items are commonly used for drug distribution, and they also observed a shotgun in an open closet in the kitchen. The officers then went up to Parker’s room, where they found bullets, knives, and a bong all in plain view. The probation officers contacted police officers. The police officers came to the scene, but they opted not to obtain a warrant and left. The probation officers then contacted a supervisor, who authorized a search of the home, and the probation officers proceeded to find cocaine in the refrigerator. At that point, the officers called the police back to Parker’s home, and the police arrested Parker.

Grounds for the Motion to Suppress the Results of the Probation Search

Parker moved to suppress all the items, arguing that the probation officers conducted an illegal search by entering his home without reasonable suspicion and that they should have obtained a warrant before searching the refrigerator. Parker also alleged that the probation officers had used their authority to evade the warrant requirement and act as a “stalking horse” for the local police department. Parker’s attorneys suggested that the police wanted to conduct a search but did not have the probable cause necessary for a warrant.

The trial court rejected the argument that the probation officers could not enter the home to conduct a basic tour and observe any contraband in plain view, but the trial court ruled that the officers should have obtained a search warrant before searching the refrigerator. Because the officers had already called the police to the scene, they did, in effect, act as agents of the police department, and therefore, they should have obtained a warrant before finding the cocaine in the refrigerator.

Standards for Probation Searches

The Superior Court reversed the suppression of the cocaine and reaffirmed the prior decisions which set these standards. The Superior Court concluded that first, under existing caselaw, probation officers may lawfully conduct a home visit, tour the house, and seize any evidence of contraband which is in plain view. Second, once the probation officers find drug packaging, weapons, and bullets which have been left out in the open, the officers do not have to obtain a warrant to search the rest of the house because they have reasonable suspicion that other contraband might be found. Third, the court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the probation department had acted as a stalking horse for the police department because there was no evidence at the motion to suppress that the police had in any way directed the search. Accordingly, the court ruled that the full search of the house was permitted despite the absence of a warrant.

There Are Limits on Probation and Parole Officers

Although the Superior Court ultimately ruled against Mr. Parker, the decision does show that even though defendants who are on probation at the time of a search have fewer rights than people who are not on probation, there are still real limits on the ability of a probation officer to search a house. First, the probation officer is limited to walking through the house and viewing only items which are in plain view. The officer cannot show up for a home visit and begin tearing the house apart. Second, the officer must have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a full search without a warrant. This standard requires the officer to point to specific and articulable facts for why the officer believed contraband might be found. The officer cannot conduct a search for drugs simply because the defendant was under supervision for drugs.

Can the Police Search My House If I Am On Probation? 

Although probation officers do not need a warrant to search the house of a probationer or parolee, the police cannot use the probation department to evade the warrant requirement and engage in a warrantless search. Unless the evidence is first uncovered by probation officers because it was in plain view during a home visit or because the officers had legitimate reasonable suspicion, police officers must still obtain a search warrant prior to searching the home of someone who is on probation. When the police or probation department violate these rules, the evidence could be excluded following a successful motion to suppress. This rule is called the “stalking horse doctrine.”

Our Philadelphia Probation Lawyers Can Help With Probation Violation Hearings

Zak T. Goldstein, Esq. - Philadelphia Probation Violation Lawyer

Different standards apply to probationers, but law enforcement must still follow the law. If you or someone you know are facing narcotics or weapons charges for drugs or other contraband found in your house, car, or on or near your person, you need the advice of a skilled criminal defense lawyer immediately. Critical exculpatory evidence and witnesses could be lost due to delay, and there may very well be defenses ranging from a motion to suppress due to an illegal search to a lack of evidence of constructive or actual possession. We have even won motions to suppress significant quantities of drugs and guns due to illegal parole searches. Contact the Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers of Goldstein Mehta LLC at 267-225-2545 for a free, confidential, and honest case evaluation.

Can Federal Agents Force You to Give up Your Computer Password?

Whether the government can force a suspect in a criminal investigation to provide the password to a computer or cell phone is an issue which frequently comes up in cases involving illegal pornographic material and other computer crimes. As a general rule, the Fifth Amendment provides the right against self-incrimination, meaning the government cannot compel a suspect or criminal defendant to say something which could lead to criminal liability. However, there are a number of exceptions to this blanket rule, and whether or not the exceptions apply could depend on whether you are being investigated with a crime by federal agents or local police or charged with an offense in state or federal court. This article focuses on a recent Third Circuit decision which allowed federal prosecutors to compel the production of a computer password from a suspect. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, has found that a state court may not issue such an order as doing so would violate the Fifth Amendment.

United States v. Apple MacPro Computer

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that in at least some circumstances, the police may obtain a court order requiring an individual to produce the password to a computer, hard drive, or cell phone. In United States v. Apple MacPro Computer, the Third Circuit upheld a contempt citation issued against a suspect (John Doe) who was being investigated for child pornography due to the Doe’s refusal to produce the password to certain hard drives which investigators recovered pursuant to a search warrant.

The procedural history of the case is a little bit convoluted, but the facts are fairly straight-forward. During a child pornography investigation, Delaware County investigators executed a search warrant on Doe’s residence. They recovered a number of phones, computers, and hard drives. Federal agents subsequently obtained a search warrant to examine the seized devices. Doe provided the password for one of the phones, but he refused to provide the passwords to various other devices. Forensic examination of one of Doe’s computers showed evidence that the computer had been used to access child pornography, but investigators were not able to view the full contents of the computer without the password because of encryption on the device.

In addition to seizing and examining the computers, the Delaware County investigators interviewed Doe’s sister. Doe’s sister confirmed that she had previously lived with Doe and Doe had actually shown her hundreds of images of child pornography on the encrypted hard drives. She also told investigators that Doe had videos of children engaged in sex acts on the devices.

Based on this showing, the federal investigators obtained an order under the All Writs Act compelling Doe to provide the relevant passwords. The All Writs Act is a relatively obscure federal statute which gained notoriety during the investigation of the San Bernadino terrorist attack when the FBI sought to compel Apple to unlock the attacker’s iPhone. It permits federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Under the Act, federal courts may issue orders “as may be necessary or appropriate to effective and prevent the frustration of” previously issued orders in cases in which the court already had jurisdiction.

Doe filed a Motion to Quash the order, arguing that the order violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The federal court denied the Motion to Quash and directed Doe to unlock the devices for the investigators. Doe did not appeal, but he refused to unlock some of the devices, claiming that he had forgotten the passwords. He was eventually held in contempt by the District Court, and the Court ordered that he remain in federal custody until he was willing to unlock the devices.

The Third Circuit’s Ruling

On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Due to the unusual procedural posture of the case, the Third Circuit applied a highly deferential plain error standard of review to the District Court’s decision. First, the Third Circuit panel found that the District Court had properly issued the order under the All Writs Act. Second, the Third Circuit agreed that ordering Doe to unlock the phone would not violate his Fifth Amendment rights because of the “foregone conclusion” exception to the Fifth Amendment. Noting that the Fifth Amendment applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating, the Third Circuit recognized that the mere act of producing evidence such as a physical object or some type of records in response to a subpoena or court order can be incriminating because the act of production concedes the existence of the evidence and the possession and control thereof by the defendant. In that situation, the Fifth Amendment applies and would prevent compelled production of evidence.

What is the foregone conclusion doctrine?

However, there is also a “foregone conclusion” exception. The Fifth Amendment does not protect an act of production when the existence, custody, and authenticity of the evidence is a “foregone conclusion” that “adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government’s information.” Thus, because the government could prove through the forensic examination of the devices and the testimony of Doe’s sister that 1) the devices existed and the Government already had custody of them, 2) Doe possessed, accessed, and owned all the devices, and 3) there was child pornography on the devices, the foregone conclusion doctrine applied. Therefore, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s finding of contempt.  

As the case makes clear, the issue of whether a suspect or criminal defendant can be compelled to produce a password is not totally settled, and it depends heavily on the facts involved. In cases where the government can prove that the defendant had ownership of the devices and used them to view child pornography or that they contain some other critical evidence, the government may be able to punish a defendant who refuses to unlock the device. However, in many cases, this will be a difficult showing for the government to make as the government will not often have witnesses like Doe’s sister who observed the defendant viewing the child pornography or damaging admissions from the defendant about who owned the devices. Likewise, it is very important that the government was able to determine that the devices contained contraband even on the unencrypted portions of the drives.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Attempted Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Can the Police Search My Car?

Can the Police Search Your Car? 

If the police searched your car and uncovered illegal contraband in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, you should speak with one of our Philadelphia criminal lawyers today. Our defense attorneys have won many motions to suppress and constructive possession trials in cases involving guns, drugs, and other illegally seized evidence. We will fight for your constitutional rights and to ensure that illegally seized items are not introduced into evidence against you. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session with one of our top-rated Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

Do Police Need a Search Warrant to Search a Car? 

The legality of car searches by the police is frequently at issue in cases involving possessory offenses such as firearms cases and drug possession cases. In general, if the police conduct an illegal search or seizure, then the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal conduct could be suppressed. In many cases, the suppression of the critical evidence could lead to the dismissal of charges. However, the police typically have more authority for when they can search your car than for when they can search a house.

The general rule under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions is that law enforcement officers need a search warrant to conduct a search. However, the courts have created so many exceptions to this general rule that the rule essentially only applies to searches of houses or other types of residences and more recently, cell phones. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of exceptions which could permit a police search of a vehicle without a search warrant depending on the facts of the case.

Consent to Search the Vehicle

First, the police can always conduct a search when they have the consent of the owner or operator of the vehicle. If the police pull over a vehicle for a traffic infraction and are suspicious of the driver for some reason, they can always ask the driver for permission to search the car. If the driver gives them permission, then they may search the car and can use anything that they find as evidence in court. The only challenges which could be brought via a Motion to Suppress in this instance would be to the legality of the initial stop and whether the driver actually gave consent or whether the consent was fabricated or coerced.

Therefore, our advice is that you should not give permission or consent should the police ask if they can search your car. However, if the police decide to conduct a search anyway, you should not attempt to resist. Instead, it is best to remain calm while they conduct the search and speak with an attorney about your legal options once the encounter has ended.

Police Usually Need Probable Cause to Conduct a Car Search

Second, courts have developed an “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement. Under the United States Constitution, police officers and federal agents typically do not need a warrant to conduct a search of a vehicle. Instead, because of the inherent mobility of an automobile, they may search the vehicle if they have probable cause to do so. Probable cause means that it is more likely than not that the police will find contraband or some evidence of a crime. Thus, if police have probable cause, they do not have to obtain a warrant or consent prior to conduct a search.

An example would be a situation in which police pull a suspect over for swerving and upon approach, the officers believe the driver to be under the influence of alcohol. While questioning the driver, one of the officers smells alcohol coming from inside the actual vehicle. In that case, a prosecutor would argue that police have probable cause to enter the vehicle and determine the source of the odor because it was more likely than not that police might find spilled alcohol or a beer can which would be evidence in the subsequent DUI case against the driver.

Until recently, Pennsylvania took a more limited approach to the automobile exception. Previously, in order to evade the warrant requirement, prosecutors were required to show both that the police had probable cause to search a vehicle and that some sort of exigent circumstances applied, meaning that evidence could be lost should the police be required to obtain a warrant. However, in Commonwealth v. Gary, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abolished the exigent circumstances requirement and adopted the federal automobile exception, meaning that police can now search a vehicle whenever they have probable cause to do so.

Although Gary is the law today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to review whether Gary is correctly decided or whether law enforcement officers should have to obtain a search warrant prior to searching a car absent exigent or unusual circumstances. Therefore, it is possible that the current court could reinstate the rule that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching a car if they want the evidence to be admissible in Pennsylvania state court.

Other Exceptions Which Allow Law Enforcement to Search a Car

Third, there are a number of other potential scenarios in which the police can search a car without a warrant. For example, if the police end up arresting the driver of the car, then there are some circumstances in which the police may conduct a search of the car as a “search incident to arrest.” However, in Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held that police may only conduct this type of search incident to arrest of a car when the police reasonably believe that they are likely to find evidence of the offense of arrest. This means that officers cannot automatically search a car as a search incident to an arrest for a suspended registration or suspended driver’s license. Instead, police must have some reason to believe they are going to find more evidence of the crime for which they arrested the driver in the vehicle.

Additionally, the police may, in some occasions, conduct an inventory search of a car if they are required to tow it after arresting or citing the driver. However, recent case law has substantially limited the authority of the police to conduct an inventory search of a car (commonly called a LIVESTOP in Philadelphia), and some of these inventory searches are now subject to challenge with a motion to suppress.

Police Can Sometimes Frisk A Car

Finally, police may also conduct a limited search of a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion that the driver or passenger was engaged in criminal activity and that he or she was armed an dangerous. In that situation, the Terry doctrine allows them to conduct a “frisk” of the areas which were accessible to the driver to ensure that the driver will not have access to weapons if he or she is allowed to return to the vehicle. Of course, if the police find contraband or are able to see contraband while conducting the frisk, then they may enter the vehicle to retrieve the contraband and use it as evidence in a criminal prosecution under the plain view or plain feel doctrines.

There are other exceptions to these general rules and other issues which frequently come up such as K9 searches and the duration of time during which the police may detain a vehicle an conduct an investigation pursuant to a traffic stop. However, those issues will be the subject of future articles.

How A Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Can Help

Clearly, there are a lot of exceptions which allow the police to search a car without a warrant, and we are likely at a point where the exceptions have begun to swallow the rule. This means that the answer to the question, “Can the police search my car?” is unfortunately that it depends on the circumstances. It is clear that police are not required to obtain a search warrant to search a car during a traffic stop. Instead, they are typically going to be required to make some sort of showing of either probable cause or reasonable suspicion in order to justify a search, and these searches are often subject to challenge with a motion to suppress.

If it can be shown that the initial stop was illegal, or that the police did not have actual reason to believe that they would find contraband in the car, it may be possible to have the evidence suppressed and excluded at trial. Likewise, if the police claim that the defendant consented to the search but the defendant and witnesses in the car disagree, it may be possible to prove that the consent was fabricated or coerced. Each case is different, and despite the elimination of the warrant requirement for vehicle searches, there are still real limits on the ability of the police to search a car. The bottom line is that illegally seized evidence usually cannot be used against you in court, and in many cases, it remains possible to challenge the warrantless search of an automobile. 

If the police searched your car and found something illegal in Pennsylvania or New jersey, you need the services of one of our Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers. We have won countless motions to suppress and trials on gun and drug charges. We will fight to protect your rights and make sure that illegally seized evidence is not used against you. Call 267-225-2545 for a complimentary criminal defense strategy session with one of our top-rated Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers.

How can I find out if I have an arrest warrant in Pennsylvania?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

We frequently hear from people who are trying to figure out if they currently have an active warrant for their arrest. This is because the police do not always tell you if you have an arrest warrant pending or even attempt to execute a warrant once they have obtained one. It is also possible that prosecutors could have filed charges in a jurisdiction in which you do not live or that mail notifying you of pending charges could have been sent to an old address and that you may not have received it. Fortunately, there are a number of ways to find out if you have a warrant for your arrest.

1) A Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help You Find Out If You Have An Arrest Warrant

The best way to find out if you have a warrant for your arrest is to contact a local criminal defense lawyer in the jurisdiction where you may have a warrant. A defense attorney will typically be able to contact the local police or prosecutors and/or check the court dockets to find out if you may have charges pending. Additionally, if it turns out that you do have charges pending, you can then retain an attorney to help you turn yourself in and resolve the warrant. There are significant benefits to retaining an attorney before you turn yourself in. For example, if you retain a criminal defense lawyer prior to turning yourself in, the police will not be a able to attempt to question you and obtain a confession, you may be processed more quickly, and your bail will likely be lower as your attorney will be able to represent you for a preliminary arraignment. In addition, the defense attorney can start investigating your case right away, work with you on building a defense, and give you advice on what to expect from the criminal justice process before you turn yourself in. It also helps you avoid the police showing up to your house or work without notice.

2) You Can Find Out If You Have A Warrant At The Police Station

You can also find out if you have an arrest warrant by going to the police station, providing the officers with identification, and asking them to run you for warrants. This is probably the worst way to to find out if you have a warrant because if it turns out that you have one, the police will almost definitely take you into custody. They may try to question you, they will definitely search you, and you will likely not have the benefit of an attorney for preliminary arraignment. Therefore, it is a much better idea to speak with a defense attorney prior to turning yourself in if you are concerned that you could have a warrant pending.

3) Some Arrest Warrants Show Up Online in Pennsylvania

In Philadelphia, new arrest warrants for state court charges do not show up online. Federal warrants also typically do not show up on the federal PACER court docket system until the defendant has actually been arrested. Outside of Philadelphia, however, many warrants will show up on the court dockets as a docket will be created and listed as an “inactive” case when the charges are filed by the assigned detective. You can search for your name on the Pennsylvania Court Website here under Magisterial District Courts and see if you have a warrant. Although the dockets may be able to give you some information, not all warrants show up on the dockets, they never show up for new Philadelphia cases, and the information is not always easy to understand. They will also not tell you about federal cases or sealed arrest warrants. Finally, active bench warrants will usually show up on court dockets even for Philadelphia cases as the docket will have an entry for the hearing at which the bench warrant was issued and the case will typically be listed as inactive. Therefore, the court dockets are not a bad place to start, but just because your name does not show up does not necessarily mean there is no warrant. If your name shows up on the dockets or you are still concerned that there could be a warrant, you should speak with a defense attorney.

4) Warrants May Show Up On a Private Background Check

In some cases, a pending arrest warrant may also show up on a private background check. However, background checks are often expensive and not always reliable, so this is typically not the best way to find out if you need to retain a defense attorney and turn yourself in. In general, if you are concerned that the police are looking for you, your best bet is to call a criminal defense attorney today.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges, we can help. We may also be able to help you determine if you have a pending arrest warrant. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended thousands of clients who were facing charges including DUI, Murder, Aggravated Assault, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, and Violations of the Uniform Firearms Code. We offer a free 15-minute criminal defense strategy session. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an award-winning defense attorney today.