Opinion ID: 2313282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The administrative search was reasonable

Text: Even with substantial compliance with Department of Corrections procedures, there still needs to be a reasonable basis to conduct the administrative search to pass constitutional muster. [42] A search of a probationer must be reasonable to be constitutionally sufficient. [43] Reasonableness is a flexible concept which must be considered with regard to the totality of the circumstances and with particular regard to the balancing of the needs of effective and reasonable law enforcement with the rights of privacy of the individual. [44] To address how we should review the reasonableness of an administrative search, we need look no further than how reasonableness is measured in every other Fourth Amendment context. In analyzing the issue under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness of a seizure, [45] pat down search, [46] a warrantless arrest, [47] an arrest warrant, [48] or search warrant, [49] the reviewing court does not focus on the subjective motivations or intent of the particular person, but instead makes an objective determination of whether the totality of the circumstances support what is required under the law. Whether it was reasonable for probation officers to conduct an administrative search should be analyzed no differently. There is no dispute regarding the information within Culver's file when the probation officers examined it. Culver's probation started September 5, 2006. His first drug test, administered on September 7 to establish a baseline for his drug levels, tested positive for cocaine (approximately 457 out of a 1000 point scale) and over 100 for marijuana. [50] Roberts testified that results over 100 indicated that Culver was smoking in large quantities and usually at approximately a daily rate and actively smoking, if not on a daily basis, close to it. Culver again registered over 100 on his second drug test, administered on September 28, a result which Roberts testified indicated to her that the marijuana levels in his system stayed exactly the same. [51] The third drug test was on October 12 and Culver registered at 73. Roberts testified that this result demonstrated Culver was probably smoking less frequently, but still pretty heavily and that he was actively smoking if [the result is] still greater than 50. On October 14, Culver missed his curfew, and on October 16, the probation office, prompted by the phone call by Lt. Ogden, examined Culver's file. The record also indicates that there was a fourth drug test which registered negative, but a date for this test does not appear in the record. Because the search was on October 16, presumably this test was done during that four-day interval. [52] The majority agrees that under the ordinary totality of the circumstances approach, the question facing a trial court (and this Court on appeal) is whether an objective probation officer, examining these facts, would have had a reasonable basis to conduct the search that day. Instead of applying this objective analysis, the majority concludes that these officers did not have a reasonable basis to do so because they would not have searched on October 16, but for Lt. Ogden's call. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis. [53] Nor do subjective intentions play a role under an ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis of an administrative search of a probationer by probation officers. [54] In our view, the question is not what these particular officers did or did not choose to do before October 16; the question is whether it would have been reasonable for a probation officer, after examining Culver's file (and ignoring the tip from the police), to have decided to conduct an administrative search. We find it is objectively reasonable for probation officers to conduct an administrative search of the home of a probationer whose drug tests are positive for more than a month and which show him actively smoking just four days before. The subsequent drop from 73 to negative in the four-day interval between the third test and the search provides further reasonable support because of the probation officers' experience with drug detoxification kits. Culver also missed his curfew. The totality of these circumstances provided reasonable grounds to conclude that Culver possessed contraband and was in violation of his probation. Notwithstanding Culver's claim that the test results were consistent with the residual effect of past and not current drug use, the trial judge accepted the probation officer's testimony concerning Culver's continuing drug use while on probation. Neither Culver nor the majority have demonstrated that these findings were clearly erroneous. [55] Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court's denial of Culver's motion to suppress the evidence seized during the administrative search. [56]