prison supervision he had completed his sentence he had served the entire sentence less statutory good time he was not in constructive custody he had not been released early and he still had an expectation of supervised by an agent of that executive branch agency supervising officers probation officers or what have you and any violations of first person supervision are educated by the same executive branch and sorry on it seems to matter to some who have written in this area that we're talking about government officials we're talking about executive branch officers supervising this post prison supervision as opposed to a probation officer let's say in the federal system who is in the judicial branch and is acting as a representative of the judge i don't know that it does matter if it seems to matter to song but it matters in the sense that we're talking about the the officers who showed up at mr hendricks home being but i would say you know no different than law enforcement officers wanted to determine if you live there they wanted to see his lifestyle and they wanted to see if there were any violations of law in plain view in the interior of the home which is particularly that last purpose that puts it into the realm of a search in our world that wouldn't that be an ethical necessary consequence of the first if they came into the home to have an effect if they didn't mention that it would just be boring something that you never you could look at it like that but it's just a little more honest well sure he could look at it like that i don't think it's any secret that when when probation officer supervising officers are are seeking entry into the home that's one of their their highest priority is to see if there's been reset of this behavior and if and if there has t person for the violation within this administrative post prison supervision system or you can take the fruits of what you learned by going into the home and looking around and and turning it into a new criminal prosecution which is what happened in this case that's the sort of entanglement with law enforcement that seems to be a factor under either the totality of the circumstances approach or the special needs approach you know in determining do do you have to have reasonable suspicion before you're allowed to do this and what the purpose i would submit it's definitely a search because there's an entry into the home and the case is payton prescott of this court clearly state when you enter enter the home that's a search you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home you it enables the government official to intrude well you know again i and i'm not exactly familiar with the with the exact quotation i mean i'm familiar with kyle but that that particular passage you know stance to them as i think they were overbought yes i think he was required to allow a home visit a physical entry into the home and without reasonable suspicion at least that's what that's what the government seems to be  this case and at the time he agreed to that first of all a lot of these cases were decided at least the next case was decided and i'm not sure that he can consent to a unconstitutional condition  so yes i would i would object to it on that basis how could he have one of the alternative i don't think we know the answer to that question i can only relate to what the order of prison post prison supervision told him when he left present and that is these are the conditions if you don't abide by them you go back to prison or you lose your good time polycystic his sentence he received a probation revocation sentence i'm going to stay two years on that and i will look while the counselor is talking to you to answer that question exactly sort of please the court counsel i must baker on behalf of the united states the first issue here is whether a home visit condition imposed on someone who has been convicted is tantamount to a search and doesn't require some level of  about the societal interest that we have with the person that's been convicted and having someone supervise them one to try to help them become law abiding and not be a fan but at the same time to protect society because this group of we i'm prepared to commit today because in this case we had a legitimate entry into the home and within sixty to ninety seconds the officer see in plain view in the living room i can stick gives them reasonable suspicion to go to the next step  yes you do or else terri be sent to jail for refusing to comply with a condition that supervises the lives i expect it would depend upon the court and or the administrative body to make that determination the federal system can select conditions although in the federal system typically there are a group of standard conditions that are imposed upon a person in the federal system and i would suggest that a home visit is standard in both the federal and state system and that may well be the approach that the state took even if the court were just find that there was some kind of protection at the entryway to this offender's home that there should be some standard in this case alternative yes but there may have been some consequences to him saying no one to climbing up in trees at the time is now usually very well there's no evidence that he didn't consent in this case the only testimony consistent with both probation talking about the home i'm not sure that that the term minimal intrusion is is appropriate i mean you going you don't have to once you're into the home start opening up drawers and looking in closets to violate someone's sen privacy and security just the act of walking in the threshold and seeing what's going on in the house tonight well well well yes but it wasn't the end of it and one of the first things the that the two supervising officers asked them when they actually got in the home is where is your bedroom now yes they didn't walk into the bedroom but that's one of the first things they did what was more i mean the fuller brush man usually doesn't get to look into the bedroom didn't go inside he didn't start looking through papers and classes but he you know he looked in the bedroom and he went to other areas you know saying that something is that this it seems is just a very polite way of saying you know we're intruding upon a person's expectation of privacy in the home we're letting them yeah it seems that that these that these probation parole searching that that's what this case is in my view and you mention the special needs and the interesting it's going to go in that direction the only case that the supreme court has decided in this realm of a probation parole search is grant them and in that case maybe they used a special needs doctrine but part i would say under the special need to stocks and since the only case that i make if yes i understand the course question there is a difference in degree of intrusion between actually going inside the home just going in and looking around and perhaps looking at papers and looking through closets and looking through drawers although i would i'm not sure i agree with that i think what preventing government officials from walking across the threshold this concept we have had it for a long time that whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy you may have a reasonable expectation today and tomorrow when the supreme court's in something you no longer have a diminished but not in extinguished expectation of privacy and that would cover you know whether this comes within the committee i think because i have not seen any case dealing with the home where a court has brief they were in the driveway where they had a right to be the probation officers they looked into the backyard saw the marijuana plant growing at that point they have reasonable suspicion answered the door that question was answered so you know again there's this there's degrees and they did not have to go into the home to satisfy that probationary parole fur