Mark James Knights Case Study

United States v. Mark James Knights, 219 F. 3d 1138

Issue: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon when law enforcement searched his home without a warrant. Even though respondent agreed to the terms of probation following release, which included searches of his person or premises with or without a warrant (The United States Department of Justice, 2014).

Rule: The rule of law in regards to Knights probation conditions following release state that Knights would “submit his person, property, residence, vehicle, personal effects, to be searched at any time, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer” (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223).

Analysis: On December 10, 2001, respondent Mark James Knights was sentenced at a California Court to probation following a drug offence (Oyez, n.d.). Agreeing to the terms of probation, Knights was released. Three days following Knights being placed on probation, a Pacific Gas & Electric power transformer and neighboring Pacific Bell

223). An obligation that probationers must agree to searches categorically advances the State's concernment in the operative management of its probationary structure. Probationers are acquainted with an amplified risk of perpetrating further criminal acts, therefore extenuating close monitoring and administration (Find Law, 2015). Knights’ was unequivocally informed of the search condition which he signed his probation requirements, resulting in a nonexistent or limited reasonable expectation of privacy (Karagiozis et al., 2005 p. 223). In general, an individual can consent to the search of his or her home; in fact the responded in a sense consented when agreed to the terms of his probation (Find Law,