of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 52 Kan.App.2d 344,
368 P.3d 1117 (2016). Appeal from Riley District Court; John
F. Bosch, judge.
Mari Jordan, of Manhattan, argued the cause and was on the
briefs for appellant.
Natalie A. Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, argued the
cause, and Bethany C. Fields, deputy county attorney, Barry
Wilkerson, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were with her on the briefs for appellee.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights prohibit
with probationers and prisoners-exist on a continuum of
possible punishments, all of which curtail their freedoms and
diminish their reasonable expectation of privacy.
totality of the circumstances analysis is used to determine
whether a search of a parolee is reasonable. Under this test,
the reasonableness is determined by assessing, on the one
hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an
individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to
which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate
parolee who signs a parole agreement allowing suspicionless
residential searches by his or her parole officer does not
have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his or her home,
and the State's interest in supervising parolees to
prevent recidivism and promote reintegration is substantial.
the facts of this case, the warrantless and suspicionless
search of a parolee's home did not violate the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution or Section 15 of
the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.
opinion of the court was delivered by
State appeals a Court of Appeals panel's suppression of
the evidence obtained through a suspicionless search of
parolee Tony Toliver's residence. The panel held that
because the condition in Toliver's signed parole
agreement allowing such searches was not authorized by Kansas
law as required by State v. Bennett, 288 Kan. 86,
200 P.3d 455 (2009), the search violated his Fourth Amendment
rights. We clarify Bennett, reverse the panel's
decision, and affirm the judgment of the district court
denying Toliver's suppression motion.
and Procedural Background
Toliver's conviction for battery of a law enforcement
officer, he was ultimately placed on post-incarceration
supervision, i.e., parole, with the Kansas Department of
Corrections (KDOC). Toliver signed an agreement that set out
the specific conditions of his parole. One of these
"Conditions of Release for Post-incarceration
Supervision" required his subjection to suspicionless
residential searches by his parole officers. It stated in
. . . .
"• [b]e subjected to a search of my person,
residence, and any other property under my control by parole
officers, any authorized parole staff, and department of
corrections enforcement, apprehension and investigation
officers with or without a search warrant and with or
without cause." (Emphases added.)
parole officer later conducted a "home visit" at
Toliver's residence to verify his address. That officer,
another KDOC officer, and three Riley County Police
Department detectives searched the apartment and found
marijuana in Toliver's bedroom. Toliver was arrested and
charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana under K.S.A.
2011 Supp. 21-5706(b)(3).
filed a motion to suppress the marijuana. He argued that
parolees have an expectation of privacy in their home but
conceded the privacy interest is diminished. And he further
argued that suspicionless searches of parolees violate the
Fourth Amendment unless such searches are authorized under
an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the trial court held
that the parole officer lacked reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to search Toliver's home. It agreed with
Toliver that parolees have an expectation of privacy in their
homes but that the expectation could be diminished through
state law authorizing suspicionless searches. The court
disagreed, however, with Toliver's claim that Kansas law
did not approve the parole agreement condition authorizing
the suspicionless search of his home. The court found the
Internal Management Policies and ...