jack has been released from confinement early and placed on probation. he found a job and rented an apartment in his hometown. one day, he responded to a knock on the door and sees his probation officer, stephanie stone. she tells him that she has decided to conduct a surprise inspection of his home. jack insists that he has been a very good citizen and is no longer involved in any criminal behavior. stephanie has no evidence that this is not true, but insists on conducting a complete search of the home anyway. stephanie finds nothing out of the ordinary, but asks if jack will follow her to the office for a drug test, just in case. jack says, "sure, i have nothing to hide." unfortunately for jack, the drug test is positive for an illegal substance and his parole is revoked.

was parole officer stone's search of jack's apartment lawful?

Yes it is lawful.

Explanation:

A sentence of probation is actually an alternative of a jail sentence. The Courts have found that probationers have reduced expectations of privacy so  they don't have the same Fourth Amendment rights as others. Courts can require probationers to submit to warrantless searches not supported by probable cause. The goal is only to help rehabilitate the probationer, protect society, or both.

Although officers usually need warrants or probable cause before they can search a person or home, a search condition eliminates this requirement. In some states, an officer must have reasonable suspicion before conducting a probation search, but in others, an officer can conduct  searches at any time, even without reason to believe that the probationer committed a crime. Some  of these search conditions allow only probation officers to search, while others authorize both probation and police officers to do the same

The Fourth Amendment typically prevents police from searching someone’s body, belongings, or home without a warrant or probable cause. But judges gives a condition of sentencing someone to probation, that the probationer agree to warrantless searches. Since this condition does not entitled the probationer’s normal Fourth Amendment rights, it’s sometimes called a “Fourth waiver.”

quid pro quo sexual harassment typically involves an employee being pressured by a superior to provide sexual favors in order to avoid being fired or demoted, or in order to get a promotion, raise or perk.

i dont think so i think its more a lot of people i know failed the first time

explanation: