State v. Montgomery
566 P.2d 1329, 1977 Ariz. LEXIS 330, 115 Ariz. 583 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition of probation requiring a probationer to submit to warrantless searches by any police officer or probation officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as probationers have a diminished expectation of privacy.
Facts:
- Defendant entered into a written plea agreement after being charged with second degree burglary and attempted grand theft.
- Pursuant to the agreement, the charge of attempted grand theft was dismissed.
- Defendant pled guilty to the crime of second degree burglary.
- The court suspended the imposition of a prison sentence and placed Defendant on probation for four years.
- As a condition of his probation, Defendant was required to serve 11 months in the county jail.
- Condition No. 11 of the probation required Defendant to “Submit to search and seizure of person or property at any time by any police officer or probation officer without the benefit of a search warrant.”
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant pled guilty to second-degree burglary in a Maricopa County trial court pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The trial court suspended the prison sentence and placed Defendant on probation for four years, imposing several conditions, including the warrantless search provision (Condition No. 11).
- Defendant appealed his sentence directly to the Arizona Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Condition No. 11.
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 condition of probation requiring a probationer to submit to a search and seizure of their person or property at any time, by any police officer or probation officer and without a search warrant, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Cameron, Chief Justice
No, this condition of probation does not violate the Fourth Amendment. A probationer who has been granted the privilege of probation has a reduced expectation of privacy, rendering certain governmental intrusions reasonable that would otherwise be invalid. While the court recognizes that such conditions authorizing warrantless searches by any police officer should be imposed sparingly, they are not constitutionally overbroad. The court distinguished this case from federal precedent, such as United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, noting that federal interpretations of the Federal Probation Act do not bind the states, which may constitutionally impose conditions more intrusive on a probationer's privacy.
Dissenting - Holohan, Justice
Yes, this condition of probation violates the Fourth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally overbroad. While a warrantless search by a probation officer may be permissible due to their supervisory and rehabilitative role, extending this power to any police officer, whose primary role is law enforcement, is an unjustifiable invasion of a probationer's limited constitutional rights. The condition allows for searches upon any whim, without any requirement of reasonableness, and fails to comply with even relaxed standards of due process for individuals with a conditional liberty status.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that, in Arizona, a probationer's Fourth Amendment rights are significantly diminished, allowing for broad search conditions that include general law enforcement, not just probation officers. The court's holding explicitly diverges from the more restrictive standard applied by the Ninth Circuit under the Federal Probation Act, creating a clear distinction between state and federal practice within the same geographic region. This precedent grants trial courts substantial discretion in crafting probation terms, prioritizing the state's interests in rehabilitation and supervision over the probationer's privacy, and potentially increasing police surveillance of individuals on probation.
