Opinion ID: 1443932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Officers Had Reasonable Grounds to Search the Home.

Text: Donald's first claim is that the probation officers did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Harrison might be involved in criminal activity and that evidence would be at the home, even after Harrison was arrested for having drugs in his car. If there were reasonable grounds, the probation officers would be justified in conducting a warrantless administrative search of a probationer's residence. As a condition of his probation, Harrison had agreed to allow probation officers to search his home pursuant to Delaware Department of Corrections regulations. [5] Both the United States and Delaware constitutions protect ordinary citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. [6] As part of their criminal sanctions, probationers do not have the same liberties as ordinary citizens. [7] This Court has held that administrative searches of probationer homes require only reasonable grounds, even if the probation officers do not satisfy each technical requirement of the search and seizure regulations of the Department of Correction. [8] The special nature of probationary supervision justifies a departure from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements for searches, but a search of a probationer's home must be reasonable. [9] The Superior Court concluded that a reasonable suspicion existed in this case to search Harrison's residence: The remaining issue is whether Probation Officer Ramsburg had reasonable suspicion to search Harrison's residence. Mr. Ramsburg arrived at the scene of a traffic stop of a vehicle that was believed to be registered to the Defendant. Harrison, wanted for violation of probation, was the driver of the vehicle. A green leafy substance, believed to be and field tested positive for marijuana, was located on Harrison's shirt. Harrison admitted to the officers that he was smoking marijuana. A bottle of gin and a bottle of brandy were also found in the vehicle. Harrison, who was under the age of 21, also admitted to drinking that evening. The most important discovery to this case, however, was found in the pocket of the driver's side door. Located there was a baggie that contained 9 loose rocks of crack cocaine and 1 piece of crack cocaine that was sealed in a little zip lock bag. The rocks were weighed and determined to be approximately 4 grams. Based on the quantity, packaging and location of the cocaine in the vehicle, the Officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Harrison was engaging in the distribution of crack cocaine. We agree. Further, there was evidence linking Harrison to the place to be searchedDonald's home. Harrison told the officers that he lived with Donald. He gave them the address, which was corroborated by his recent pay-stub with Donald's address printed on it. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the administrative search of Harrison's home was reasonable.