Court Opinion

ID: 9726852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:10:37.543086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:31.489282
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
FREEDBERG, J.:
¶ 1 I join in all respects with the majority’s legal analysis and conclusions. I write separately because of my belief that the specific facts present in this case make it such that there is no danger that our decision will ever be read to stand for the proposition that, as the thorough dissent suggests, “merely failing to locate a parolee at his/her approved address constitutes reasonable suspicion to conduct a detailed search of those premises.... ” Specifically, Appellant absconded from supervision and had a history of failure to report. It was reasonable for the parole officers to assume that one who absconds from supervision is not continuing to reside at the address known to the parole authorities. Further, Appellant’s aunt, residing at the approved address, expressly provided agents with another address where Appellant might be staying.
¶ 2 In my judgment these facts coalesced to create reasonable suspicion that the searched premises could contain evidence of the whereabouts of an absconding and delinquent parolee so that he could be found and arrested pursuant to a warrant.
¶ 3 Accordingly, I join the Opinion of Judge BENDER.