Griffin v. Wisconsin
483 U.S. 868 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a probationer's home is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment if it is conducted pursuant to a state regulation that itself is reasonable. The state's operation of a probation system presents a "special need" beyond normal law enforcement that justifies replacing the traditional warrant and probable cause requirements with a lesser standard, such as "reasonable grounds."
Facts:
- Joseph Griffin was convicted in Wisconsin of resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and obstructing an officer and was subsequently placed on probation.
- As a condition of probation, Griffin was subject to Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services regulations.
- One regulation permitted a probation officer to conduct a warrantless search of a probationer’s home if there were "reasonable grounds" to believe contraband was present.
- Another regulation prohibited probationers from possessing a firearm without advance approval from a probation officer.
- On April 5, 1983, Michael Lew, the supervisor of Griffin's probation officer, received a tip from a police detective that there "were or might be guns" in Griffin's apartment.
- Lew, another probation officer, and three plainclothes policemen went to Griffin's apartment.
- After Griffin answered the door, Lew informed him they were going to search the home.
- The probation officers conducted a search and found a handgun.
Procedural Posture:
- Griffin was charged in Wisconsin trial court with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Griffin filed a motion to suppress the handgun evidence, which the trial court denied.
- A jury convicted Griffin, and he appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Griffin appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which also affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Griffin's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless search of a probationer's home by probation officers, conducted pursuant to a state regulation authorizing such a search on 'reasonable grounds,' violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A warrantless search of a probationer's home does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it is authorized by a valid state regulation that permits such searches on reasonable grounds. The operation of a probation system constitutes a 'special need' for the state that extends beyond normal law enforcement, justifying a departure from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements. Probationers have a diminished expectation of privacy due to their status as convicted offenders under state supervision. The state's interest in ensuring rehabilitation and protecting the community makes the warrant requirement impracticable, as it would interfere with the supervisory relationship and reduce the deterrent effect of probation. Therefore, a regulatory scheme that allows searches based on 'reasonable grounds'—a standard less than probable cause—is a reasonable response to this special need and satisfies the Fourth Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The warrantless search of the probationer's home violated the Fourth Amendment. While the special needs of the probation system may justify reducing the standard for a search from probable cause to 'reasonable suspicion,' they do not eliminate the fundamental requirement of a warrant for searching a home. The home is afforded the highest degree of Fourth Amendment protection, and exceptions to the warrant requirement are narrow. Furthermore, the information in this case—an unverified tip from an unknown source—did not even meet the 'reasonable grounds' standard. The probation officers failed to follow their own regulations for verifying the tip, making the search unreasonable even under a reduced standard.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The warrantless search of the probationer's home violated the Fourth Amendment. A police officer's mere speculation that a probationer 'may have had' contraband is not a constitutionally sufficient basis to justify a warrantless, nonconsensual search of a private residence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the Fourth Amendment rights of probationers, cementing their status as having a lower expectation of privacy than ordinary citizens. By applying the 'special needs' doctrine, the Court created a framework that allows states to bypass the warrant and probable cause requirements for probation supervision. This ruling empowers probation agencies to implement regulations that grant broad authority to their officers, influencing how probation is administered nationwide. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on the reasonableness of the specific state regulations and what factual basis is sufficient to constitute 'reasonable grounds' for a search.
