# Griffin v. Wisconsin

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 26, 1987 · 483 U.S. 868

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431139

## Case

- **Full name:** Griffin v. Wisconsin
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 26, 1987
- **Citations:** 483 U.S. 868; 55 U.S.L.W. 5156; 107 S. Ct. 3164; 97 L. Ed. 2d 709; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2897
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stevens
- **Judges:** Scalia, Rehnquist, White, Powell, O'Connor, Blackmun, Marshall, I-B, Brennan, Stevens, I-C
- **Cited by:** 1,406 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by State v. LaFromboise, 1996 N.D. LEXIS 17 (1996).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 5
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431139

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "[p]robation is simply one point (or, more accurately, one set of points) on a continuum of possible punishments" and probationers "do not enjoy 'the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only ... conditional liberty properly dependent on obs…
- stating that “probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and [assures] that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large,” and “[t]hese same goals require and justify the exercise of supervision to assure that the restrictions are in fact observed”
- holding that a warrantless search of a probationer's home was "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and noting that the special nature of probationary supervision justified a departure from the usual warrant and probable cause requirements for a search
- holding that a state regulation allowing warrantless searches of a probationer’s home upon reasonable suspicion of a probation violation was reasonable under the special needs exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment
- recognizing that a warrantless search may be justified “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens,
with whom
Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.
Mere speculation by a police officer that a probationer “may have had” contraband in his possession is not a constitutionally sufficient basis for a warrantless, nonconsensual search of a private home. I simply do not understand how five Members of this Court can reach a contrary conclusion. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431139. Public record. Not legal advice.