other issue which wasn't really decided that the lower court level which the government tenders on appeal is whether or not this search can be supported on the special needs exception to the fourth amendment all dressed the special needs exception for special needs exception pursuant to a statutory and regimented regime it was a probationary search that was carefully circumcised and laid out by statutes in probationary regulations the other facet that's important  to look at when we look at special needs exceptions to the fourth amendment is whether or not the purpose of the search is sufficiently divorced from law enforcement purposes and indeed since griffin has come out and some pundits say that they're holding a group that is somewhat suspect given authority since crippen by the supreme court in cases such as in the natural to be ed then and first and versus city of charleston which seems you further to put forth a requirement that the special needs has to be even more divorce no privacy expectation in light of the fact that the per only which is your client situation is not well and sampson in san interesting enough sanson talks about how they don't even need to get into the special needs analysis because they're going to analyze th situation there of your fourth amendment analysis their stance and deals with a parolee and this is particularly important proly he was subject to a search that he agreed search condition that he agreed to that explicitly stated that the search can could be co they are the functional equivalent that there is no measurable difference regarding the review segmentation of privacy between a parolee a supervisor elisir probation or however and sampson the court talks about judge thomas in his majority opinion talks about how sampson explicitly agreed to these conditions in order to be released from prison on parole and other you can stay in prison or you can be released on parole if you agree to these conditions that is not the situation in the supervisor weeks context supervis foisted upon an individual after they fully discharged their prison sentence so it lacks that somewhat closet consensual and i was under the impression that the proviso at least was even more restrictive than probation tenders an argument similar to this in their answering brief which seems to be that this expectation of privacy is further diminished by all these factors to get to this point where you're apolo reasonable suspicion almost as though the government is arguing for this standard prison but then later on he relented and agreed in january two thousand and five to have a modification in court the court ordered a modification that he served home confinement counsel let's suppose let's suppose that we agree with you that reasonable suspicion of what what what reasonable suspicion is the office of probation or the government have to tender to support the residential search is that reasonable suspicion that conditions of supervised release have been violated in the past because it is clear  this record in the cline admitted in january of two thousand and five that he did attend a funeral of this cousin or gang members were present that he had missed a number of drug task that he had committed a number of violations additionally he was well he was put on home confinement suspicion and what of what that he personally violated the reason reasonable suspicion that he may be engaged in a violation of his release arrangement and that he may be a possibly involved  somebody there is a the alleged gang membership the fact that he went to the funeral where other gang members it was it is just by being mentioned expressly prohibited troubled i'm not troubled i'm puzzled as to why you say that reasonable suspicion of what i mean these are this is the bread and butter of reasonable suspicion they are concerned whether your client is analysis however what i like to focus the inquiry on is did they have reasonable suspicion that they would find criminal proceedings or contraband or something of that ilk during a presidential search that the reasonable suspicion has to be tailored to the purpose of the search argument that they're going to possibly find a fire it cannot in this case because our ability to cross examine and to go into an inquiry about the basis of this tip how the tip was formulated what was the basis for belief that he had a gun enough for reasons of suspicion so it was this this unreliable tip plus the additional factors addressed by this court in my argument is that those additional factors occurred in the scene of events that have no probative weight toward establishing that there would have been any contraband and walk to tell upheld for three reasons but the court has already focused in on on the main one i think the court need not even reach this dancing issue because the court correctly found that there was reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant it violated the terms of his supervise the time they elected to carry out the search at the time the probation officers decided to carry out the search of the defendant's home they had information that he had violated probation or supervised release by virtue of the g p s tracking device showing that over two consecutive days he was nowhere near where he had told the probation officer that he would be when they spoke with him about it he lied about his whereabouts he was told that they were going to be going back to court judge george had told the defendant if there were any further infractions he was going back to prison for thirty six months this information was known to them at the time that they then got the additional tip regarding the defendant brandishing a weapon at an individual during a day that they were unable to verify where he had been so when that condition arose it was incumbent on the probation officer as part of his duties to go perfor and that's not the standard that the court is to take into consideration when evaluating the propriety of a search such as what was around was the record indicate any prior search of the of the defendant's home in other words i want to be looking for is whether there was some kind of or even lesser privacy expectation because in fact this kind of a search that occurred previously is there anything in the record to that effect  confinement at his own request an electronic monitoring therefore we make the point that his privacy expectation was closely akin to where prisoners would be and i think the court has to make that finding that he had absolutely no expectation  an expectation of privacy had to have been exceptionally low under those circumstances and particularly where the probation officer had informed him we were going to go back to court with the knowledge the judge george had said you can expect to be confusing the standards of the analysis and various opinions as to whether there was a law enforcement purpose behind the search and that's where some of the cases talk about having to have reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity has taken place that's not what we have here here in any event they didn't go there wasn't police officers independent probation officers going to try to find evidence they were simply conducting a search pursuant to the agreement the defendant had signed that he  starts to ensure compliance with the terms of supervised release so in terms that get out of his expectation of privacy he was given expressed notice that he was subject to the search condition to ensure that he was complying with what the terms that were required by the court so unless there are any other questions