People v. Hale, 93 N.Y.2d 454 (1999)

A probationer’s written consent to searches of their vehicle and residence, given as a condition of probation in a negotiated plea agreement, is enforceable and provides a lawful basis for a search, provided the search is conducted by a probation officer within the scope of their supervisory duty and in the context of the probationary goal of rehabilitation.

Summary

Hale pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and operating a vessel while impaired, causing a death. As part of a negotiated plea to avoid imprisonment, he consented to probation terms, including searches of his vehicle and residence by a probation officer for drugs. After testing positive for drugs multiple times, and following a tip that Hale was selling drugs, his probation officer searched his home, finding drugs and weapons. Hale moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unlawful. The Court of Appeals held that the consent-based search provision was enforceable, justifying the search because it was part of a negotiated plea, related to rehabilitation, and conducted by a probation officer.

Facts

Defendant Hale was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and operating a boat while impaired, resulting in a death.
To avoid a potential prison sentence, Hale entered a negotiated plea agreement.
As a condition of probation, Hale signed a written consent form allowing probation officers to search his vehicle and residence for illegal drugs and related items.
After several months on probation, Hale tested positive for drugs multiple times.
The probation officer received a tip that Hale was selling drugs from his residence.
Based on the consent provision and the drug-selling tip, the probation officer, accompanied by police, searched Hale’s residence.
The search revealed rifles, shotguns, illicit drugs, and a scale.

Procedural History

Hale was indicted on drug and weapon charges based on the evidence found during the search.
The Supreme Court granted Hale’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the search unlawful.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s suppression order.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a consent search provision, agreed to as a condition of probation in a negotiated plea agreement, is a valid basis for a search of a probationer’s residence.

Holding

Yes, because the condition was part of a negotiated plea agreement, the consent was knowing and voluntary, and the search was conducted by a probation officer within the scope of their supervisory duties and related to Hale’s rehabilitation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court recognized that while probationers have diminished privacy expectations, their homes are still protected by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Citing Griffin v. Wisconsin, the Court acknowledged that probation creates “special needs” allowing for departures from standard warrant and probable cause requirements. Unlike Griffin, where a state regulation authorized the search, here, the search was based on a court-ordered probation condition stemming from a negotiated sentence with Hale’s written consent. The Court emphasized that Hale voluntarily agreed to the search condition to avoid imprisonment. “A defendant’s offer to surrender a measure of liberty or privacy cannot be considered voluntary in every sense of the word, but it is not involuntary as a matter of law.” The Court distinguished People v. Jackson, where the search was based solely on an anonymous tip without a prior consent provision or court order. The condition was rehabilitative, tailored to address Hale’s drug abuse, and the probation officer initiated the search as part of his supervisory duties, making the search reasonable. The court emphasized that the conditions were “calculatedly included among the terms of probation because all parties were ostensibly seeking the same objective: that defendant refrain from abusing drugs.”