Opinion ID: 1943697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Evidence in Probation Violation Proceedings

Text: All authorities agree that the probation supervisor has the authority to visit the probationer's home or place of employment without the necessity of a warrant. United States v. Workman, 585 F.2d 1205, 1208 (4th Cir.1978); Croteau v. State, 334 So.2d 577, 580 (Fla. 1976); cf. Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 317-18, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971) (caseworker's visit to home of welfare recipient is not a search). Chapter 948, Florida Statutes (1977), provides that a defendant placed on probation shall be under the supervision and control of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. It is our view that this statute inherently includes the duty of the probation supervisor to properly supervise the individual on probation to ensure compliance with the probation order. The statute further expressly authorizes the probation supervisor to arrest a probationer without a warrant and to bring the probationer before the court which entered the probation order whenever there is a reasonable ground to believe the probationer has violated his probation. § 948.06, Fla. Stat. (1977). It would be impossible to properly supervise an individual on probation if the probation supervisor had no authority to enter upon the living quarters of his probationer to observe his lifestyle; to require the probationer to respond to the probation supervisor concerning requests for information including place of residence, employment, identity, to confirm or deny his location at a particular place or at a particular time; to explain his noncriminal conduct; and to permit a reasonable search of his person and quarters by the supervisor. In our view it would be unreasonable to require a probation supervisor to supervise an individual on probation in the absence of such authority. In Croteau v. State, 334 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1976), we held that a probation officer had the authority to enter upon the living quarters of his probationer and to conduct a warrantless search. We further held that any evidence discovered would be admissible in probation revocation proceedings although the same evidence would not be admissible to prove a new criminal offense. In State v. Heath, 343 So.2d 13 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 893, 98 S.Ct. 269, 54 L.Ed.2d 179 (1977), we held that a probationer, upon a specific request and at periodic intervals, was required to identify himself and provide all information necessary to his supervision. We specifically determined that admissions or statements made by the probationer to his supervisor would be admissible in probation revocation proceedings. In that decision we reiterated the fact that the exclusionary rule for statements obtained in violation of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination would be applicable to statements offered at a trial for a separate criminal offense. Numerous federal jurisdictions, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have considered this issue. In United States ex rel. Lombardino v. Heyd, 318 F. Supp. 648 (E.D.La. 1970), aff'd, 438 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 880, 92 S.Ct. 195, 30 L.Ed.2d 160 (1971), the probationer was stopped and frisked without a warrant by a policeman who had been the arresting officer on the burglary charge for which the probationer was on probation. As a result of the search, a tin of marijuana was discovered. The trial judge held that the search was illegal, finding there were neither reasonable grounds for suspicion that the probationer was armed nor probable cause for arrest. After this hearing, the state dropped charges of possession of marijuana. Subsequently, the same trial judge, at a probation revocation proceeding, found that the probationer had violated conditions of his probation because of the possession of marijuana found in the illegal search. The decision of the trial judge was affirmed, in effect recognizing the differences between a new criminal proceeding and a probation revocation hearing insofar as the application of the exclusionary rule is concerned. See also United States v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94 (5th Cir.1973). Other federal circuits also adhere to the view that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to probation revocation proceedings. See Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897, 96 S.Ct. 200, 46 L.Ed.2d 130 (1975); United States v. Farmer, 512 F.2d 160 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987, 96 S.Ct. 397, 46 L.Ed.2d 305 (1975); United States v. Hill, 447 F.2d 817 (7th Cir.1971); United States ex rel. Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161 (2nd Cir.1970). None of these decisions were conditioned or dependent upon the presence of an express search condition in the order of probation. Article I, section 12, of the Florida Constitution, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, is more restrictive than its federal counterpart contained in the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. The Florida Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated... . Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence. The last sentence is an express constitutional exclusionary rule as distinguished from the federal rule which exists by case decision. As a consequence, in Florida for evidence derived from a search or seizure to be admissible in either probation revocation proceedings or a new criminal action, the evidence must be properly or reasonably obtained given the circumstances and the responsibilities of the probation supervisor or a law enforcement official who makes the search and seizure. It is our opinion that an individual convicted of a criminal offense who is placed on probation should be subject to certain reasonable restrictions on his living in an open society. By his or her conviction, the probationer has already demonstrated a need for supervised control. Probation in certain circumstances is desirable for several reasons. It maximizes the probationer's usefulness in society while still vindicating the authority of the law in protecting the public. Though probation conditions may at times severely restrict a probationer in comparison with an ordinary citizen, they are not nearly as restrictive as imprisonment. Probation conditions must be reasonably related to the offense and should provide the standard of conduct essential to the probationer's rehabilitation in addition to the protection of the public. Protection of the public is an important and proper consideration by the trial judge when determining whether probation or confinement should be imposed. If proper conditions related to the purpose of probation cannot be imposed by the trial judge or if unreasonable limitations and restrictions are placed on probation supervisors, the use of probation may substantially decline. The sentencing judge must be free to impose conditions of probation that are reasonably related to the offense and the rehabilitation of the offender, and the probation supervisor must be allowed the necessary authority to properly supervise the probationer. The search of a probationer's person or residence by a probation supervisor without a warrant is, in our view, a reasonable search and absolutely necessary for the proper supervision of probationers. However, granting such general authority to law enforcement officials is not permissible under the search and seizure provisions of the Florida or United States Constitutions.