Whether police violate the Fourth Amendment when they conduct a suspicionless search of a probationer's home

QUESTION PRESENTED Following an unsubstantiated tip that David Hamm was engaged in drug-related activity, police— believing that they had insufficient evidence for a search warrant—learned that his wife, Angela Hamm, was on probation. Tennessee, like many States, imposes a “warrantless search” condition on probationers, which subjected Mrs. Hamm to “a search, without a warrant, of [her] person, vehicle, property, or place of residence by any Probation/Parole Officer or law enforcement officer, at any time.” When neither Mr. nor Mrs. Hamm were home, the police entered and searched their residence. Following discovery of a small quantity of drugs, Mr. and Mrs. Hamm were arrested and charged with possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute. A divided Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the trial court’s suppression of the evidence, concluding that because Mrs. Hamm was on probation, the Fourth Amendment does not require police to possess reasonable suspicion to search the home she shared with her family. The question presented is: Whether police violate the Fourth Amendment when they conduct a suspicionless search of a probationer’s home. (i)