Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): People v. Wilson, 228 Ill.2d 35, 319 Ill.Dec. 353, 885 N.E.2d 1033, 1042 (2008) (upholding an agreement where the parolee consents in advance to warrantless searches); Sullivan v. Bunting, 133 Ohio St.3d 81, 975 N.E.2d 999, 1001 (2012) (per curiam) (upholding the search of a parolee’s email based on his prior consent to warrantless searches); see also Roman v. State, 570 P.2d 1235, 1241-42 (Alaska 1977) (“Depending on the nature of the crime involved, a 93, 899 (2003) (finding that a search pursuant to a parole agreement is permissible when “(1) the parole officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the parolee committed a parole violation; and (2) the search was reasonably related to the duty of the parole officer”); State v. Velasquez, 672 P.2d 1254, 1260 (Utah 1983) (<HOLDING>); Pena v. State, 792 P.2d 1352, 1356-58 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arrest of a parolee for parole violation does not trigger the speedy trial period for the underlying offense (B) holding parolee consented to search of his email based on the parole agreement (C) holding that notwithstanding an agreement the state still must have reasonable grounds for investigating whether a parolee has violated the terms of parole or committed a crime (D) holding parolee waives constitutional searchandseizure rights by voluntarily signing parole agreement (E) holding that parole status alone is insufficient to justify search of a parolee
Output (English): holding that arrest of a parolee for parole violation does not trigger the speedy trial period for the underlying offense