United States v. Knights

Mark James Knights was on probation when police searched his home without a warrant and found evidence of a crime. The Court is deciding if a common California probation rule allows police to search a home based only on "reasonable suspicion" (a lower standard than probable cause).

This case affects anyone serving probation who has agreed to search conditions as part of their sentence. If the Court allows these searches, police could enter homes without a warrant even if they are investigating a new crime rather than just checking on probation status.

The Fourth Amendment usually requires a warrant and "probable cause" (strong evidence) for police to search a home. This case tests whether being on probation lowers that constitutional bar to "reasonable suspicion" (a lower level of evidence).

No substantive justice or advocate reactions are available yet.

The Court must decide if probation agreements can legally bypass the usual warrant requirements for home searches.

The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The next major step will be for the justices to schedule and hold oral arguments to hear from both sides.

Mark James Knights' probation order required him to submit to searches of his person or property at any time. This included searches by any law enforcement officer, with or without a search warrant or "reasonable cause."

"Reasonable suspicion" is a lower legal standard than "probable cause" (the strong evidence usually needed for a warrant). It means police have a specific and objective basis for suspecting a person of a crime.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the search was for "investigatory" purposes rather than "probationary" ones. Because it was a criminal investigation, the lower court found the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.

The government argues that the search was reasonable because Knights signed a probation agreement that allowed for searches at any time. They believe this agreement, combined with reasonable suspicion, is enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

The Court is deciding if a search based on a probation condition and reasonable suspicion satisfies the Fourth Amendment. They are looking at whether the search was "reasonable" even without a traditional warrant.