published Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Police say despite court ruling they will obtain search warrants

by Jacqueline Koch

PDF: Criminal searches 1

PDF: Criminal searches 2


Charlotte Yvonne Turner was convicted in Kentucky in 2002 of felony possession of a controlled substance and wanton endangerment. She received a seven-year sentence but was paroled and moved to Tennessee, where her parole supervision was transferred. In April 2007, an officer in Union City stopped her for a seat belt violation and, knowing her history, searched her vehicle after verifying she had signed an agreement that allowed her to be searched without a warrant. The officer then searched her house without a warrant because he did not have enough information to obtain one. He found a loaded .38-caliber handgun. A trial court ruled that because no consent was given to search the home the action was “harassing” and “capricious.”

Source: Tennessee Supreme Court

Though a state Supreme Court ruling has made it easier for police to search property of those on probation or parole, local law enforcement officials say they’ll continue to get warrants and have reasonable cause before they search.

This month, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that “parolees who are subject to a warrantless search condition may be searched without reasonable or individualized suspicion,” according to the opinion.

That gives law enforcement officials more leeway to conduct searches on people who have been convicted of crimes, something that could be beneficial in extreme circumstances, said Chattanooga Police Department Assistant Chief Mike Williams, who oversees the uniformed patrol division.

“We’re always going to err on the side of caution to make sure we’re doing things legally right, and if there’s any question about it we would still want to get a warrant,” he said. “But in exigent circumstances that might not be possible.”

He gave as a hypothetical example a person whom officers believe has a weapon and would use it to harm someone else if police did not immediately search a residence to find it.

Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond said he agrees with the court’s ruling that a parolee has less privacy in regard to searches of homes and vehicles than a person who has not committed a crime.

“I’ll instruct my officers that it’s just another tool they can use if they suspect a parolee is in violation of the law,” he said.

Marion County Sheriff Bo Burnett said he had not read about the ruling and would like to study the case and its appeals before discussing it in detail.

“I’m not a big fan of searches without probable cause,” he said. “I’d like to know more about it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless searches may be constitutional “if the person being searched has been convicted of a criminal offense and is serving a sentence,” which can be anything from solitary confinement in a prison to a few hours of community service, according to a 1987 decision.

The dissenting opinion in the state Supreme Court held that the “Tennessee Constitution provides a greater degree of protection against suspicionless searches than the federal Constitution.”

Local defense attorney Robin Flores said the government whittled away Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“When you’re locked up behind bars, you have almost no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever,” he said. “As far as going into (people on) probation or someone with a prior record, that’s really pushing the envelope.”

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

It's so odd to me....the law. When someone is actually committing a crime, it's extremely hard to get anything done about it. On the other hand when someone's not doing anything wrong it seems like police interrogate and invade any aspect of that person's life. Yes, these people made mistakes in the past and it doesn't mean they won't make another one but it really doesn't make it any easier for them not to make one if they're constantly being harassed. Being constantly harassed, they'll always feel like it doesn't matter what they do so why even try. Seems like police could care less. They get a pitiful paycheck as it is. What reason do they have to care about someone's privacy? It's not like they're getting paid to. It just goes without saying that you're not innocent until proven guilty, you're guilty until proven innocent.

I don't know. Seems like it does cross the line a little.

November 3, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.