This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit rigidly followed circuit precedent to create and apply an incorrect standard to determine whether probable cause existed to believe that Howard resided at an unreported address. The court should have determined the reasonableness of the search by balancing Howard's reduced expectation of privacy as a probationer with legitimate governmental interests. Furthermore, the court's analysis served to protect the property at the unreported address rather than Howard's Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This decision is contrary to the principle articulated in Katz v. United States, which states the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect people, not places.
Sean A. Kersten,
United States v. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause for Probationers and Parolees, 37 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.