Police entered and searched Petitioner Raymond Bailey’s motel room in North Little Rock, Arkansas based on his probationary status. Pursuant to the terms of his probation, Bailey was subject to a search waiver under which he consented to the search of his person, place of residence, or motor vehicle. But when officers acted upon this waiver and searched the motel room, they lacked probable cause to believe Bailey was actually residing there.

The Eighth Circuit has held that officers must have probable cause to believe a dwelling is the residence of a probationer or parolee to rely on a consent waiver for a search, but in its decision below, the Arkansas Supreme Court departed from federal precedent and found that reasonable suspicion was sufficient. In doing so, it increased the likelihood of police searches being conducted at wrong addresses, thus increasing the risk to both citizens and law enforcement.

Bailey’s petition is not ultimately about protecting property—it’s about protecting people. Fourth Amendment limits on home entries protect human life. Entries based on underdeveloped or stale information needlessly threaten the safety of individuals and law enforcement. By discarding the probable cause requirement and lowering the evidentiary threshold requirement to support a warrantless search, the opinion below needlessly endangers ordinary citizens and law enforcement officers. The Cato institute has filed an amicus brief asking the Court to grant the petition and clarify that probable cause—not reasonable suspicion—is the correct standard.