Court Opinion

ID: 9499178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:39:50.524314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:19.667586
License: Public Domain

MINER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Because it seems to me that this case is on all fours with Samson v. California, — *180U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), I see no point in the majority’s assessment and rejection of “Massey’s argument that Office Rojas’ entrance into the bedroom violated a New York State-imposed restriction limiting home visits to one room of the residence.” Majority Op. at 179.
After Samson, we know that parolees, by virtue of their status, “[do] not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate,” where they are given notice that they may be searched at any time for any reason. Samson, 126 S.Ct. at 2199. . The “waiver” signed by Massey provides in relevant part: “I will permit my Parole Officer to visit my residence and/or place of employment[,] and I will permit the search and inspection of my person, residence and property.” See N.Y. Comp.Codes R & Regs. tit. 9, § 8003.2(d). This consent to search is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from the “waiver” apparently signed in Samson in the form prescribed by California law.
The waiver in Samson provided that the parolee agreed “ ‘to be subject to search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the day or night, with or without search warrant and with or without cause.’” Id. at 2196 (quoting Cal.Penal Code Ann § 3067(a)). Massey’s “waiver” gives him specific notice that he, his residence and his property are subject to search at any time for any reason, further diminishing his already “severely diminished expectation of privacy.” Id. at 2199; see People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175, 182-83, 401 N.Y.S.2d 31, 371 N.E.2d 794 (1977) (holding that this “waiver” grants to New York parole officers “the right to conduct searches rationally and substantially related to the performance of’ their duties). Massey’s claimed violation of his Fourth Amendment rights clearly can be rejected on this basis.
The “New York State-imposed restriction” to which the majority refers is found in the New York State Division of Parole’s Policy and Procedure Manual, an internal document apparently adopted following the decision in Diaz v. Ward, 506 F.Supp. 226, 228-29 (S.D.N.Y.1980). The Parole Manual includes the following provisions:
A parole officer has the right to visit a releasee’s residence. However, that re-leasee ... may limit the parole officer’s visit to one room of that residence. Where the officer wishes to view other portions of the residence for casework, verification or other reasons, the officer may do so only with the consent of the releasee....
I am not as sure as the majority that “it was ... reasonable for Officer Rojas ... to designate the bedroom assigned to [Massey] as the room she wished to visit.” Majority Op. at 179. There is no evidence that Massey failed to make use of other rooms in his mother’s apartment, and his residence may well have consisted of the entire apartment. Additionally, the Parole Manual is not a model of clarity. It speaks of the right of the parolee to “limit the parole officer’s visit to one room of the residence.” Must the officer warn the parolee of that right, or is the parolee presumed to know it? As to other portions of the residence, the Manual allows views of those areas “only with the consent of the [parolee].” Massey was not offered any alternative — Officer Rojas directed him in the first instance to show his bedroom, and he complied.
The problematical aspects of this case, which the majority unnecessarily proceeds to resolve, are easily avoided. Federal law teaches that “a condition of release can so dimmish or eliminate a released prisoner’s reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless search by a law enforcement *181officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment.” Samson, 126 S.Ct. at 2196. The conditions of release are those provided by Massey’s “waiver.” See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 8003.2 (establishing the “conditions of release”). That the Parole Manual “exceeds” constitutional requirements is not a limiting factor for us in resolving the Fourth Amendment issue here. See United, States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 666 (2d Cir.2004) (referring to certain portions of the New York Parole Manual as “exceedfing]” constitutional requirements); United States v. Pforzheimer, 826 F.2d 200, 203-04 (2d Cir.1987) (holding that evidence seized in violation of state law is admissible in federal court so long as in conformity with federal law).
In view of the foregoing, there is no need, in resolving the Fourth Amendment issue in this ease, to review restrictions found in the Parole Manual. To the extent that the majority is of the opinion that there is, I am constrained to note my disagreement. In all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion and with the determination to affirm the judgment of the District Court.