the Fourth Amendment; the probation officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or the possession of contraband. The District Court decided the motion on the facts contained in the parties’ stipulation, Doc. 31-2, and denied it. Williams then pled guilty to one count of the indictment, and the court sentenced him to prison for eighteen months and a two-year term of supervised release. Williams appeals his conviction, arguing that because he was on probation for a previous conviction at the time, the search should have been based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or a reasonable suspicion that he had contraband. He contends that there is a lesser government interest in monitoring probationers than parolees, so there should be a differe 11th Cir. 2009) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>). In Knights, the Court held that a
holding unanimously that a warrantless search of a probationers apartment that was supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized as a condition of his probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding warrantless search of probationers home by law enforcement officer for investigatory purposes was reasonable when conditions of probation included a search term and search was supported by reasonable suspicion holding warrantless search of probationers home by probation officers based on reasonable suspicion was constitutionally permissible when conditions of probation required probationer to submit to home visits but not searches holding a search of a probationers home pursuant to a wisconsin probation regulation was permissible under a special needs theory but not addressing whether the probationer had consented to the search under the regulation holding that the special needs of wisconsins probation system justified a warrantless search of a probationer by probation officers pursuant to a wisconsin regulation that allowed probation searches based on reasonable grounds