State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity
142 N.H. 16, 696 A.2d 530, 1997 N.H. LEXIS 50 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition of probation allowing probation officers to conduct random, warrantless searches of a probationer's premises without individualized suspicion is constitutional, provided the condition is reasonably related to the probationer's supervision and rehabilitation. However, a probation condition authorizing police to conduct such searches independently is an unconstitutional violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches.
Facts:
- On February 21, 1994, Zeta Chi Fraternity, a New Hampshire corporation, held a 'rush' party at its fraternity house to attract new members.
- The fraternity hired two female strippers, and fraternity members encouraged guests to give them money, stating that the more money they received, the more they would do.
- Fraternity members brought out a mattress for the performance, and witnesses saw guests give money to a stripper in exchange for being allowed to perform oral sex (cunnilingus) on her.
- Andrew Strachan, a nineteen-year-old guest, purchased three to five cans of beer from a vending machine located in an apartment within the fraternity house.
- The fraternity controlled the vending machine and its proceeds, only fraternity members had keys to the apartment where it was located, and a member was seen making change for the machine.
- Prior to the event, the fraternity members had voted not to provide alcohol at the rush and had moved the vending machine from the main area to the separate apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Zeta Chi Fraternity was charged in the New Hampshire Superior Court (the trial court) with the illegal sale of alcohol and prostitution.
- Following a trial, a jury found the fraternity guilty on both charges.
- The trial court sentenced the fraternity to two years of probation, which included a condition that it must submit to unannounced, warrantless searches of its premises by probation officers or the Durham Police Department.
- Zeta Chi Fraternity, as the appellant, appealed its convictions and the constitutionality of the sentencing condition to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
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 that authorizes random, unannounced, and warrantless searches of a probationer's premises by both probation officers and police, without any requirement of individualized suspicion, violate Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Horton, J.
No as to probation officers, but yes as to police. A probation condition authorizing random, warrantless searches by probation officers does not violate the New Hampshire Constitution because the 'special needs' of the probation system make the warrant and suspicion requirements impracticable for effective supervision and rehabilitation. Such searches are permissible so long as the condition is reasonably related to the goals of probation. However, a condition authorizing police to conduct such searches independently is unconstitutional because police do not have the same special rehabilitative duties as probation officers and cannot use the probation system as a 'stalking horse' to circumvent the warrant requirement for their own criminal investigations.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Brock, C.J.
Yes. A probation condition authorizing random, warrantless searches without any individualized suspicion violates the core protections of Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution. The dissent argues that individualized suspicion is an inherent quality of a reasonable search, especially of a home, and the 'special needs' of the probation system do not justify eliminating this fundamental constitutional safeguard. A search of a residence is a significant intrusion, not a minimal one, and allowing it without suspicion renders the privacy rights of probationers illusory, blurring the line between probation and incarceration.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant 'special needs' exception to the warrant and suspicion requirements under the New Hampshire Constitution for individuals on probation. It grants probation officers broad authority to conduct searches to ensure compliance, weighing the state's interest in supervision and rehabilitation more heavily than a probationer's privacy interests. Crucially, the ruling erects a firm wall between the powers of probation officers and those of police, prohibiting law enforcement from using this exception to conduct their own warrantless investigations. This distinction preserves the warrant requirement for police while creating a powerful, but limited, supervisory tool for the probation system.
