PERSONS ON PROBATIION
PROBATIONER’S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
An individual’s status as a probationer or parolee does not diminish his entitlement to Fourth Amendment protection from searches conducted by police in the course of general criminal investigations, particularly with respect to the admissibility of the fruits a criminal prosecution thereon, rather than at the probation or parole revocation proceedings.
“[i]t seems reasonable that (a parolee’s relations with the police in general, and their powers over him, need be no different than those of the ordinary citizen.” U.S. v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34 (5th Cir. 1982).
May v. State, 582 S.W.2d 848, 852 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); U.S. v. Bradley, 571 F.2d 787 (4th Cir. 1978).
But when the probationer is suspected of not complying with the terms of his probation, his Fourth Amendment protections are diminished. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 LEd.2d 709 (1987) [search of probationer’s residence by probation officer, accompanied by police officer who suspected probationer possessed firearm was permissible under a state statute that permitted searches of probationer’s dwelling without consent, because of the “special needs” that arise out of the probationer/probation officer relationship].
One court has held that an escapee has no more right to privacy while on the lam than he would in his cell.
U.S. v. Roy, 734 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1984).
PROBATIONERS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
A probationer whose terms and conditions of probation require that he or she be truthful with their probation officer, must nevertheless assert their Fifth Amendment privilege as to questions regarding criminal offenses. And since the Fifth Amendment is not “self-executing” any statement made in response to a probation officer’s questions may be used against the probationer in a criminal proceeding. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 79 LEd.2d 409 (1984) [probation office visit was not “custodial interrogation” and probationer was not threatened with revocation for not answering. If he was so threatened then statement could not be used where answers could incriminate him in a separate criminal proceeding].
