Pubdate: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA) Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Examiner Contact: http://www.examiner.com/ Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX Author: Bob Egelko, The Examiner Staff WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF CONVICT RULED ILLEGAL Cops Claim He Was Subject To Scrutiny At Any Time, But Federal Appeals Court Says No With a ringing call for privacy protection, a federal appeals court has rejected Napa County officers' warrantless search of the home of a man suspected of plotting to firebomb PG&E property. Sheriff's deputies said they needed no warrant to search the Napa apartment of Mark J. Knights in June 1998 because he was on probation for a drug conviction, requiring him to submit to searches at any time. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said such searches, to be legal, must be done for the purposes of probation - to supervise Knights and aid in his rehabilitation - and cannot be a pretext for conducting a search in an unrelated criminal investigation without a warrant. "As we enter the 21st century, citizens find the very notion of privacy under almost relentless assault," said Judge Ferdinand Fernandez in the 3-0 ruling. He cited the proliferation of random drug testing, the sale of driver's license information and sharing of bank account data, and electronic tracking of computer Web site users. "Perhaps it even seems quaint to worry much about the sanctity of a home where we can speak, listen, read, write and think in privacy," Fernandez said. But he said probationers, like all Americans, are protected by constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches. The court disagreed with a 4-3 ruling last year by the California Supreme Court, in a separate case, allowing police to conduct a warrantless search of a probationer's home to look for evidence against his roommates. The state court said the officers' motives were irrelevant because a probation search can be conducted for any reason. Thursday's ruling is binding on all federal judges in California and the eight other states in the 9th Circuit. It means the legality of a search may depend on whether the defendant is charged in state or federal court. The ruling bars the use of considerable evidence against Knights, who was indicted a year ago on charges of conspiracy to commit arson against PG&E property. Authorities said the utility had cut off his electricity in 1996 for failing to pay his bills. Between then and the time of his arrest, the court said, more than 30 incidents of vandalism were reported against PG&E facilities in Napa County, including short circuits caused by chains thrown onto transformers. After seeing suspicious activity in Knights' apartment, a sheriff's deputy broke down a door, searched and found detonation cord, ammunition, bolt cutters, a PG&E padlock and other material, the court said. But U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins ruled the search illegal and the appellate panel agreed. Citing rulings since 1985 that limited the scope of probation searches, Fernandez said the deputy "was using the probation term as a subterfuge to enable him to search Knights' home without a warrant. In so doing, he crossed the frontier that separates citizen privacy from official enthusiasm." - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D