Why is the case of Griffin v Wisconsin so important regarding probation?

Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.

Chicago citation style:

Scalia, Antonin, and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868. 1986. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep483868/.

APA citation style:

Scalia, A. & Supreme Court Of The United States. (1986) U.S. Reports: Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868. [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep483868/.

MLA citation style:

Scalia, Antonin, and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868. 1986. Periodical. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/usrep483868/>.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

  • Law School Case Brief

Griffin v. Wisconsin - 483 U.S. 868, 107 S. Ct. 3164 (1987)

Rule:

Wisconsin law puts probationers in the legal custody of the State Department of Health and Social Services and renders them subject to conditions set by the court and rules and regulations established by the department. Wis. Stat. § 973.10(1) (1985-1986). One of the Department's regulations permits any probation officer to search a probationer's home without a warrant as long as his supervisor approves and as long as there are reasonable grounds to believe the presence of contraband -- including any item that the probationer cannot possess under the probation conditions. Wis. Admin. Code §§ 328.21(4), 328.16(1) (1981).

Facts:

An individual, who had previously been convicted of a felony, was placed on probation after his conviction in a Wisconsin state court on various criminal charges. Under Wisconsin law, probationers were in the legal custody of the state department of health and social services and were subject to the rules and regulations established by that department. The probationer's apartment was searched pursuant to one such regulation which permitted any probation officer to search a probationer's home without a warrant as long as the officer's supervisor approved and as long as there were "reasonable grounds" to believe contraband was present on the premises. Another regulation made it a violation of the terms of probation to refuse to consent to a home search. The search was conducted by the supervisor of the probationer's probation officer and was based on information from a police detective that there were or might be guns at the probationer's apartment. A handgun was found during the search, and the probationer was charged with the felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial in the Circuit Court of Rock County, Wisconsin, the probationer's motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search was denied, and the probationer was convicted of the firearms violation. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the conviction and held that the denial of the probationer's suppression motion was proper because the probation diminished a probationer's reasonable expectation of privacy so that a probation officer could, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, search a probationer's home without a warrant and with only reasonable grounds to believe contraband was present. The State Supreme Court further held that the reasonable grounds standard in the state search regulation satisfied the reasonableness standard of the Federal Constitution, and that the detective's tip established reasonable grounds within the meaning of the regulation. A writ of certiorari was granted. 

Issue:

Did the warrantless search of the probationer’s home violate the Fourth Amendment? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Court held that a warrantless search of a probationer's home by state probation officers pursuant to a state department of health and social services regulation authorizing such a search--if approved by the supervisor of the probationer's probation officer, and if founded upon "reasonable grounds" that contraband was present--did not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, because the probationer had been committed to the legal custody of the state department of health and social services and was thereby made subject to its rules and regulations. Moreover, the special needs of the state's probation system made the warrant requirement impracticable and justified replacement of the standard of probable cause by "reasonable grounds," as defined by the state supreme court. The Supreme Court was bound by the state supreme court's interpretation of the search regulation that a "tip" from a police detective that the probationer "had" or "may have had" an illegal weapon at his home constituted the requisite "reasonable grounds" to support the search.

Access the full text case

Why was the case of Griffin vs Wisconsin so significant?

In Griffin vs. Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the warrantless search of a probationer's home in this case did not violate the fourth amendment.

Why is the case of Griffin v Wisconsin considered so significant regarding probation quizlet?

Why is the case of Griffin v. Wisconsin considered to be so significant with respect to probation? It limited the Fourth Amendment rights of probationers.

What was the Griffin case?

City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), overturned the conviction of a Jehovah's Witness who had gone door to door selling pamphlets and magazines. While affirming that First Amendment rights applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, this case focused almost exclusively on freedom of the press.

Why was the exclusionary rule not applied in Pennsylvania v Scott?

The deterrence benefits of the exclusionary rule would not outweigh these costs. As the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized, application of the exclusionary rule to parole revocation proceedings would have little deterrent effect upon an officer who is unaware that the subject of his search is a parolee.