People v. Jackson, 46 N.Y.2d 171 (1978)
A probationer is constitutionally entitled to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a search based solely on an anonymous tip, without any prior indication of unreliability, is unreasonable in the absence of a warrant or exigent circumstances.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s person, locker, and car, based solely on an anonymous tip, violated the probationer’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court emphasized that while probationers have diminished expectations of privacy, they are still entitled to protection against unreasonable searches. The court found the search unreasonable because the probationer had not previously demonstrated unreliability, the source of the information was unknown, and the probation officers had ample time to obtain a warrant. The court also noted that state law required a court order for such a search unless incident to taking the probationer into custody.
Facts
Defendant Jackson was sentenced to five years of probation after pleading guilty to a weapon charge. About a year and a half later, Sergeant McBurney received an anonymous tip that Jackson, an employee at Xerox, possessed a weapon and was dealing drugs. The informant described Jackson’s car and license plate number. McBurney verified the car’s registration and Jackson’s probation status. McBurney informed Jackson’s probation officer, Petrovick. Petrovick and his supervisor decided to search Jackson at his workplace. They arrived at Xerox with McBurney, searched Jackson’s person, locker, and car, and found a handgun in the car.
Procedural History
A probation revocation proceeding was initiated, and Jackson was indicted for possessing a dangerous weapon. At the probation revocation hearing, Jackson challenged the legality of the search. The trial court upheld the search, revoked Jackson’s probation, and sentenced him to imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed. Jackson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a probation officer’s search of a probationer, his locker, and his car, based solely on an anonymous tip and without a warrant or exigent circumstances, violates the probationer’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Holding
Yes, because the search was unreasonable in light of the probationer’s constitutional rights, the lack of prior unreliability, the anonymous source of the tip, and the failure to obtain a warrant as required by state law when no exigent circumstances existed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that probationers, like parolees, are entitled to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, although their status is relevant in determining the reasonableness of a search. The court cited CPL 410.50, which requires reasonable cause to believe a defendant violated a condition of the sentence before a search is authorized. The court distinguished this case from People v. Huntley, where the parole officer had personal knowledge of the defendant’s parole violations. In this case, there was no indication Jackson had been unreliable. The court noted the probation officer’s investigation, which began with “a wholesale search of the defendant, his locker and his automobile” was extreme, especially given the lack of urgency and the availability of other investigative methods. The court held that to uphold the search would undermine the probationer’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court pointed out the probation officers failed to obtain a court order before the search despite having ample time to do so, violating the procedure outlined in CPL 410.50. As the court stated, “The CPL does not provide for a search of a probationer or his property without a court order except as incident to taking the probationer into custody”. Because Jackson was not taken into custody, and no exigency justified bypassing the warrant requirement, the search was deemed unlawful. The court emphasized that the probation officers were in their office, which was one floor above the court where the defendant was sentenced, meaning “Under the circumstances there was more than enough time to submit the matter to the court as required by the statute.”