California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Burgener, 224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 41 Cal.3d 505, 714 P.2d 1251 (Cal. 1986):
A convicted defendant released on probation, as distinguished from a parolee, has satisfied the sentencing court that notwithstanding his offense [41 Cal.3d 533] imprisonment in the state prison is not necessary to protect the [714 P.2d 1269] public. The probationer may serve a jail term as a condition of probation ( 1203.1),but his probation is not a period of reintegration into society during which the same degree of surveillance and supervisions as that deemed necessary for prison inmates is required. A parolee cannot claim an equivalent status. The imprisonment preceding his parole has come about just because he poses a significantly greater risk to society. His offense may have been such that he was ineligible for probation initially. (See 1203, 1203.06-1203.09.) The sentencing judge may have determined that the defendant posed too great a risk to the public to warrant a grant of probation. (See People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 689, 143 Cal.Rptr. 885, 574 P.2d 1237.) Or, the defendant may have been sentenced to prison following a revocation of probation occasioned by his failure to comply with conditions of probation. That he has been imprisoned at all therefore justifies inclusion of a warrantless search condition among the terms on which felony parole is established. The People were not required to establish that the condition was related to defendant's past offense. It is, per se, related to future criminality, and thus is a reasonable condition of parole.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.