emphasized that “[probation is simply one point ... on a continuum of possible punishments.” Id. at 874, 107 S.Ct. 3164. “A warrant requirement would interfere to an appreciable degree with the probation system,” particularly because “the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant would make it more difficult for probation officials to respond quickly to evidence of misconduct.” Id. at 876, 107 S.Ct. 3164. Moreover, “[a]l-though a probation officer is not an impartial magistrate, neither is he the police officer who normally conducts searches against the ordinary citizen. He ... is also supposed to have in mind the welfare of the probationer.” Id. Overall, the Court concluded that “the probation regime would ... be unduly disrupted” by requiring pro 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Finally, in Skinner v. Railway Labor
holding that while a lawfully issued warrant to search premises authorizes the officers executing it to search in a reasonable manner whatever spots within the described premises their professional experience indicates may be used as a cache for the items named in the warranty such a warrant does not by its own force permit a search of the persons residents or visitorswho chance to be at the premises at the time the warrant is executed or belongings of a nonresident visitor present on the premises holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes holding that the owner or operator of commercial premises in a closely regulated industry has a reduced expectation of privacy such that the fourth amendment warrant and probablecause requirements have lessened application in this context holding that expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individuals home holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings