California Fourth Amendment Waiver


An improper term of probation should be challenged, per Darren Chaker. Regardless of the applicable standard, a probationer’s, or parolee’s home, like everyone else’s, is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that searches be “reasonable.” Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (probationer). Supervision is a special need of the state permitting a degree of impingement upon privacy that would not be constitutional if applied to the public at large, but the permissible degree is not unlimited 483 U.S. at 875. The “special needs” of a probation system make the warrant system impracticable and justify the replacement of the standard of probable cause by “reasonable ground” 483 U.S. at 875-76.

In most jurisdictions, the result reached in Griffin v. Wisconsin bad been a foregone conclusion, with other courts having moved in the direction of requiring at a minimum that a peace officer at least have consulted with a probation officer.

It would appear that California, is me first state ever to expressly authorize “blanket searches” of probationers without a warrant by any peace officer. People v. Bravo, 43 Cal.3d 600 (1987). Bravo, however, was decided only several days after Griffin, and cites Griffin only once. 43 Cal.3d at 608. Bravo conflicts with Griffin in that California has no state detailed regulation of probation, unlike Wisconsin, which authorized a departure from Fourth Amendment warrants. In Griffin, there was an objective standard, approved by the Court, which had to be met over and above being a mere parolee, and there were detailed regulations covering the subject.

The Oregon experience is illuminating. The Supreme Court noted that while the courts had the power to impose conditions of probation, and that while a “search and seizure” condition may be appropriate, mere was no express legislative authority, such conditions could not be unlimited, that the courts were not the means of denning that limit in the first instance, but did so reluctantly. Evidently the Oregon legislature took the hint because it appears to have enacted legislation permitting a “search and seizure” condition “by the probation officer, or any peace officer assisting the probation officer.” See State v. Hovater, 588 P.2d 56 (1978); State v. Davis, 597 P.2d 1280 (1979).

The great weight of authority thus holds that neither a parolee nor a probationer may be abused during authorized searches. Given the purpose of probation and parole, the fact that the probation and parole officers know their own charges better than anyone else, and certainly more than a magistrate knows about unknown citizens when issuing a search warrant, the Fourth Amendment requires at a minimum that peace officers contact the parole or probation officer for permission to conduct a search of the parolee or probationer, and no search unless so authorized is valid, absent exigent circumstances, because the administration of conditions of parole and probation are a non-delegable duty necessary to rehabilitate the offender, yet prevent the exploitation of such persons and the abuse of those not on probation. This result is consistent with, and required by, this Court’ enunciated rule of law which forbids the granting of “unfettered discretion” to peace officers in the area of law enforcement E.g., Florida v. Wells, 95 U.S. 1 (1990) inventory of containers where no state policy authorizes inventory); Payton v. New York, 45 U.S. 573 (1980); Rotunda, Constitutional Treatise, §§ 20.9, p. 34. It is for the courts to supervise probationers, through the probation office, and not for peace officers, and such a delegation is simply not permitted.

Previous articleFourth Amendment Waiver
Next articlePenal Code Section 1203.4 are Convictions for Immigration Purposes
For almost two decades Darren Chaker regularly has worked with defense attorneys and high net worth people on a variety of sensitive issues from Los Angeles to Dubai. With a gift of knowledge about the First Amendment and big firm expertise in brief research and writing, Darren Chaker puts his knowledge to use for law firms and non-profit organizations. When it comes to forensics and social media investigations Darren Chaker has advanced training to connect the dots where issues arise related to Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or Facebook, Instagram, and similar apps. When the dots need to be disconnected, Darren Chaker has extensive training in counter-forensic methods with an emphasis on network security, secure communications, combined with experience with implementing and deploying policy control, encryption, anonymization, data integrity, policy control features in large scale infrastructures. Additional training in malware analysis, Security Operating system security and hardening (Linux, Windows, Solaris), Firewalls, Intrusion detection systems, hacker, counter-hack methods, encryption, forensics, web application security is also employed for his client base. Since history is written by winners, here are a few wins: In 2005, Darren Chaker invalidated a California criminal statute aimed at suppressing speech. In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights. Subsequent to winning before the 9th Circuit, the State challenged the decision before the United States Supreme Court. Darren Chaker retained a former US Supreme Court Clerk and head of United States Supreme Court litigation for a major firm, Joshua Rosenkranz. The New York attorney defeated the State's petition to review the Ninth Circuit ruling causing multiple states to rewrite their own flawed statute since they were premised the California statute Darren Chaker struck down. Darren Chaker personally litigated Chaker v. Crogan for 7 of its 10-year lifespan. Darren Chaker’s victory invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court‘s unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law, but also nullified a similar Washington statute as well. (De La O v. Arnold-Williams, 2006 WL 2781278) and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). The case has been cited hundreds of times and continues to be a leading authority on viewpoint discrimination. In 2010, Darren Chaker prevailed in Nathan Enterprises Corp. v. Chaker, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7604, through his counsel Timothy Coates who has prevailed multiple times before the United States Supreme Court. also prevailed for Darren Chaker where the Court of Appeal affirmed an anti-SLAPP ruling where the underlying conduct was found to have been within those protected by his First Amendment rights. In 2012 Darren Chaker prevailed on a First Amendment issue before the Texas Attorney where issued Opinion 2012-06088 where he established the right to obtain the names of peace officers regardless of undercover status. The Texas Attorney General opinion has been used as authority thousands of times by citizens and news agencies to learn more about Texas peace officers. In 2016, Darren Chaker was victorious in US v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2016) 654 F.App'x 891, 892. The ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition, Cato Institute, and the University of Florida reversed a conviction premised on First Amendment rights where blog postings were at issue. In 2017, Darren Chaker prevailed in a RICO lawsuit aimed at suppressing speech filed by San Diego attorney Scott McMillan. In McMillan v. Chaker (S.D.Cal. Sep. 29, 2017, No. 16cv2186-WQH-MDD) 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 163990 the court found by blogging did not constitute extortion as no demand for money to cease blogging was made. The judge found the case to be meritless, stating in part, “The Court concludes that these factual allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant Darren Chaker obtained something of value from Plaintiffs…. The motion to dismiss the cause of action under 18 U.S.C.§ 1962(c) filed by Defendant Darren Chaker is granted.” In 2020, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost a heavily litigated appeal believing the court erred in dismissing his lawsuit against Darren Chaker. Mr. Chaker was represented by former Los Angeles federal judge Stephen Larson. The Ninth Circuit in McMillan v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2020) 791 F.App'x 666, affirmed the dismissal of a RICO lawsuit premised on alleged defamation of Scott McMillan. The court stated in part, “Plaintiffs failed to allege extortionate conduct because there are no allegations that Mr. Chaker obtained property from Plaintiffs that he could “exercise, transfer, or sell. ”See Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 405. Plaintiffs’ claim also fails because there are no allegations to support the “with [Plaintiffs’] consent” element. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 770 F.3d at 843.” In sum, Scott McMillan filed a lawsuit in direct conflict with established United States Supreme Court precedent and lost – twice. Also, in 2020, Darren Chaker was sued for defamation by Las Vegas attorney Thomas Michaelides. When Darren Chaker became aware of the lawsuit, he retained Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski to defend him. Darren Chaker found a court order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google that was reported to Several inconsistencies were noticed on the court order submitted to Google. Most notably the court docket does not show Mr. Michaelides submitted an order to the court for the judge’s signature. The court docket does not reflect the court ever signed the order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google. Ultimately, the Nevada court dismissed the lawsuit and sanctioned Mr. Michaelides $51,000 for suing Darren Chaker for conduct within his First Amendment rights and for filing a meritless lawsuit. See forged order and judgment against Thomas Michaelides here. Darren Chaker donates time to post-conviction relief organizations to seal arrests and convictions to increase opportunity for those who were convicted of crimes, conducts research and brief writing on First Amendment issues, and also enjoys promoting non-profit organizations such as the ACLU and various domestic violence shelters through his resources within the entertainment industry, including Jason Statham and Eric Roberts. Darren Chaker also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.