warrant may issue without “probable cause” supported by “oath or affirmation” because parolees are subject to lesser or no Fourth Amendment protections. We disagree. Although, while on supervised release, Vargas was subject to lesser Fourth Amendment protection, he was nonetheless protected by the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 248 (9th Cir.1975) (“It is thus too late in the day to assert that searches of parolees by then-parole officers present no Fourth Amendment issues.”). The cases dealing with lesser Fourth Amendment protection are generally concerned with which searches and seizures are reasonable without a warrant. See e.g., Knights, 534 U.S. at 122, 122 S.Ct. 587 (<HOLDING>). The cases do not address whether a warrant
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 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 that the warrantless search of knights supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding a warrantless probation search condition that is reasonably related to a probationers rehabilitation is a valid limitation to a defendants fourth amendment rights holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation