cunundrum69
Member
This is a private conversation between melissachavarri and cunundrum69:
In a post submitted by you, you asked... "okay so my question is: if someone who lives in my house is on informal probation and just got recently incarcerated one night ago, can the police still do a probation search when they know the person is in jail. also considering shes on informal probation and they came at 1:30 am when there are young children in the house who have school the next day...just wondering if i had any rights to not let them inside my house because she was in jail.."
Member DMCC180 suggested that: When your friend signed her probation order, it said "The probation order included the following condition: that XXX (she) would submit his … person, property, place of residence, vehicle, personal effects, to search at anytime, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer. When I made a response which attempted to refute the insinuation submitted by DMCC180, he deleted my post and prevented this information from being able to find its way to you. He then had the post closed so that no further information could be given concerning this topic.
The following is the post that he had erased and censored... It is necessary in order to be able to successfully defend against your friends new criminal charges. DMCC180 is likely in some way affiliated with California law enforcement and therefore has taken efforts to censor this information...
"They erased my post once again.... The information that they erased in my last post was as follows: Idaho’s probation condition that a probationer submit to a search “at the request of” a probation officer means that the probation officer must tell the probationer that the search is going to occur. A search in the probationer’s absence was thus void. State v. Turek, 2011 Ida. App. LEXIS 11 (March 2, 2011):
In that case, the court stated:
"Finding the reasoning of these authorities persuasive, we conclude that a probation condition that requires a probationer to submit to a search “at the request of” an officer requires that the probationer be informed of an officer’s intent to conduct an impending search. Like the Joubert Court, we recognize that the purposes of probation may be better advanced if we were to allow probation officers to conduct unrestricted, unannounced searches of a probationer’s residence. However, we must keep in mind that probationers’ expectation of privacy is merely diminished, not obliterated. In addition, to adopt the state’s interpretation of the term would be to essentially ignore the plain language of the probation condition–a proposition for which the state has cited no authority and which does not constitute an “objectively reasonable,” nor logical, interpretation." id
When I submitted this information, i clearly warned the OP that California law was probably different, and that it would be wise to do some double checking. I also suggested that it could never hurt to attempt to argue that probationers should be present during a search and seizure, and that California law was unreasonable.
Why don't you let the OP decide what to do before you CENSORS start impeding upon the free flow of idea's and information.
The logic of the Court of Idaho may be compelled to work in California because the California State probation 4th waiver requires that the probationer "submit" to a search by any peace officer. In order to submit, they must be there and must be aware of the impending search. If this were not the case, then the California state order would read something along the lines of: " By accepting this plea bargain, you are deemed to have "submitted" to any future search by a police or probationer, regardless of whether you are present to submit to it or not".
The definition of "submit" is as follows: "to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment." Submit | Define Submit at Dictionary.com If they are not there, then they cannot actually submit to the search. If they are not required to be present during the search or have sufficient knowledge of the impending search, then they are found to have already submitted to the search before it occurred. This is not in accordance to the language of the Ca. 4th waiver which requires them to submit in the present tense.
To the person who asked the question above... i highly recommend that you copy and paste this information immediately before the internet censor police come and erase my post a 4th time. They are attempting to conceal this information for the purposes of preventing this argument from successfully being presented before the California State legal system.
In a post submitted by you, you asked... "okay so my question is: if someone who lives in my house is on informal probation and just got recently incarcerated one night ago, can the police still do a probation search when they know the person is in jail. also considering shes on informal probation and they came at 1:30 am when there are young children in the house who have school the next day...just wondering if i had any rights to not let them inside my house because she was in jail.."
Member DMCC180 suggested that: When your friend signed her probation order, it said "The probation order included the following condition: that XXX (she) would submit his … person, property, place of residence, vehicle, personal effects, to search at anytime, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer. When I made a response which attempted to refute the insinuation submitted by DMCC180, he deleted my post and prevented this information from being able to find its way to you. He then had the post closed so that no further information could be given concerning this topic.
The following is the post that he had erased and censored... It is necessary in order to be able to successfully defend against your friends new criminal charges. DMCC180 is likely in some way affiliated with California law enforcement and therefore has taken efforts to censor this information...
"They erased my post once again.... The information that they erased in my last post was as follows: Idaho’s probation condition that a probationer submit to a search “at the request of” a probation officer means that the probation officer must tell the probationer that the search is going to occur. A search in the probationer’s absence was thus void. State v. Turek, 2011 Ida. App. LEXIS 11 (March 2, 2011):
In that case, the court stated:
"Finding the reasoning of these authorities persuasive, we conclude that a probation condition that requires a probationer to submit to a search “at the request of” an officer requires that the probationer be informed of an officer’s intent to conduct an impending search. Like the Joubert Court, we recognize that the purposes of probation may be better advanced if we were to allow probation officers to conduct unrestricted, unannounced searches of a probationer’s residence. However, we must keep in mind that probationers’ expectation of privacy is merely diminished, not obliterated. In addition, to adopt the state’s interpretation of the term would be to essentially ignore the plain language of the probation condition–a proposition for which the state has cited no authority and which does not constitute an “objectively reasonable,” nor logical, interpretation." id
When I submitted this information, i clearly warned the OP that California law was probably different, and that it would be wise to do some double checking. I also suggested that it could never hurt to attempt to argue that probationers should be present during a search and seizure, and that California law was unreasonable.
Why don't you let the OP decide what to do before you CENSORS start impeding upon the free flow of idea's and information.
The logic of the Court of Idaho may be compelled to work in California because the California State probation 4th waiver requires that the probationer "submit" to a search by any peace officer. In order to submit, they must be there and must be aware of the impending search. If this were not the case, then the California state order would read something along the lines of: " By accepting this plea bargain, you are deemed to have "submitted" to any future search by a police or probationer, regardless of whether you are present to submit to it or not".
The definition of "submit" is as follows: "to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment." Submit | Define Submit at Dictionary.com If they are not there, then they cannot actually submit to the search. If they are not required to be present during the search or have sufficient knowledge of the impending search, then they are found to have already submitted to the search before it occurred. This is not in accordance to the language of the Ca. 4th waiver which requires them to submit in the present tense.
To the person who asked the question above... i highly recommend that you copy and paste this information immediately before the internet censor police come and erase my post a 4th time. They are attempting to conceal this information for the purposes of preventing this argument from successfully being presented before the California State legal system.
