while you say that, what can you do to a person such as the OP if they refuse to allow the search of the computer or a (legally defined) separate and private room even if the PO believes the parolee/probationer has access to it.[/quote
We can either go ahead and search it and suffer the possibility of a suppression motion later, or we can seize it and seek a search warrant, or we can remove everyone from the home and seek a search warrant that way. It depends on the law in the particular state in this area. The OP's state may allow greater access or lesser access with regards to roommates. I am operating under the assumption that the laws are similar.
Understand that prior to the housing of someone on parole or probation, the roommates are often told about the conditions and what could happen. They then have the opportunity to accept the placement of the individual or not. So, in this instance one of two things likely happened. The OP moved in to a home already occupied by the probationer/parolee, or, the OP was previously informed of what might happen and is only now understanding what that conversation was about. And, I suppose it is possible that in KY the probation or parole officers do not discuss the placement with roommates before placement. That might make it harder to support an unwarranted search - at least the FIRST time. Now, the OP KNOWS what can happen and either needs to take steps to secure his property he does not want searched, or, he can find other living arrangements for himself or the parolee/probationer.
Consider the possibility the parolee uses a computer at work. Are you claiming the PO somehow has the right to search the employers entire computer system? I don't think they would.
No, but they might be able to search the computer terminal itself.
I just don't see how the lack of rights of the parolee can be enforced upon a person who still has their full rights, property the parolee cannot claim ownership or control over. It would be a violation of the actual owners rights.
That is why people who accept probationers or parolees are asked to do so with their eyes open. They can either accept the intrusion or reject it - and reject the probationer or parolee.
I know you are pretty good with court citations and I would have to believe that just such a situation has been challenged. Any citations come to mind?
For CA, yes, but not for the OP's state. Decisions of the 9th Circuit and the California courts would not be binding on the OP's state.
The issue here is whether or not it is reasonable to conclude that the probationer or parolee had access to that room or area of the house. Searching the private bedroom of a person not on parole or probation should not be conducted unless there is some reason to believe that any of the property belonging to the person is stored in it. Most any other common room will be fair game.