HIGH COURT DECISION IN WOODLAKE CASE MAKES PAROLEE SEARCHES EASIER ON POLICE

VISALIA - A case out of Woodlake has grown into a California Supreme Court
ruling that makes it easier for police to search parolees for evidence of
wrongdoing.

Under the court's decision, police and parole agents can now search
parolees for drugs or other evidence without having a reasonable suspicion
of wrongdoing.

A state official said the 4-3 ruling, released Monday, should discourage
crime by parolees.

"It's helpful to keep parolees on their toes by knowing they can be
searched at any time, except for purposes of harassment," said Deputy
Attorney General Joel Carey.

But a defense lawyer said the high court went too far in granting parole
agents and police free rein to search the bodies, possessions or homes of
the 108,000 California adults on parole in California.

"Are we willing to give blanket search authority to police when parolees
live in our midst?" asked lawyer William Arzbaecher, who argued the case
before the Supreme Court. "That authority may infringe not only on
parolees' rights, but our own."

He said he would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling overturned a 1986 decision that required "reasonable suspicion"
of a parole violation or crime by a parolee before parole officers could
conduct a search.

The case emerged out of Woodlake, where Rudolfo Reyes, now 34, was living
after being released from prison.

In 1995, his parole agent, Gordon McClaskey, contacted the Woodlake police
department and asked officers to check on Reyes and see whether he was
under the influence of drugs.

Officers saw Reyes coming out of a shed, but they said he didn't appear to
be on drugs. They searched the shed and found a small amount of
methamphetamine.

Reyes pleaded guilty, but the appeals court overturned the conviction,
saying the search was not supported by reasonable suspicion of drug use.
The state Supreme Court reversed that decision.

Jim Miller, district administrator for the state parole office in Fresno,
said he doubts the decision will affect day-to-day operations.

Parolees are felons who have been released from prison but undergo
supervision for three to five years. They must report to parole officers,
can be searched without a warrant and can be returned to prison for
violating conditions of parole, which forbid drug use and all criminal
conduct.

"It's helpful to law enforcement in terms of being able to supervise
parolees," said Rachelle A. Newcomb, the deputy attorney general who argued
the case.

She said the ruling gives parole agents authority that county probation
agents already have, established under other court decisions. The search
standard already applies to people convicted of lesser crimes but sentenced
to county jails and released on probation, or sentenced to probation
without jail time.

A criminal defense lawyer in Fresno said 80% of parolees end up back in
prison on violations of parole.

"And now it's going to be worse," said Fresno defense lawyer Catherine
Campbell.

"You've got a Wilson court reversing opinions by the Bird court," Campbell
said, noting the decision overturns a decision established when Rose Bird
was chief justice. Bird was voted out in 1986 for her opposition to the
death penalty.

Tulare County Public Defender Neal Pereira said the decision may adversely
affect people who are living with a parolee who undergoes a search.

"I worry about that kind of stuff because other people present might end up
in the purview of a search," Pereira said.

But Carey, the state deputy attorney general, said people who live with
parolees "suffer, by definition, a lesser expectation of privacy."

He said the ruling allows a search of only the parolee's quarters and
common areas of the home, not someone else's room.

The opinion was written by Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Justices Joyce
Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Stanley Mosk dissented.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski