My question involves criminal law for the state of: California.
The police in Clovis California conducted a probation search at my uncle's apartment where his ex-girlfriend was alleged to be living. When they stormed into the apartment the officer's noted that his ex-girlfriend was leaving his room and decided that this would be sufficient grounds to tear the place apart.
The two problems that I am having trouble with are as follows:
1. My uncle's ex-girlfriend does not live at with him. She did also stated to the police that she did not live there. Their response was they she has been receiving mail at the address and that was sufficient proof of residency (her name is not on any utility bills, rental agreements or any other resident related debts).
2. The officer's, while determining in their minds that she must live someplace regardless of the statements to the contrary by my uncle and his ex, decided that because she was observed stepping from his room, that the whole house was subject to search (which they did with Nazi like zeal).
As I understand it, the probationer or parolee is in fact subject to search at any time the State wants to do so, however, that search while in a residence applies to the area that the person has designated as theirs. The other residents are entitled to their civil rights and peace of mind that they aren't going to be subjected to unreasonable and unwarranted harassment.
So, the bottom line here is "DO THE POLICE NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF A PERSON WHO IS NOT ON PROBATION OR PAROLE SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE WHO IS ON PROBATION OR PAROLE HAPPENS TO BE THERE? IN ADDITION, IF THE OFFENDER DOES NOT LIVE AT THE LOCATION THEY ARE FOUND AT, DOES THIS GIVE THE POLICE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE ENTIRE HOUSE?"