to have Officer Tripp search the motel room and vehicle. Peterson gave his permission to search Baldón, but indicated he would like to be involved in the search and would promptly meet the police officers at the motel. Tripp learned Baldón was staying in room 29. When Peterson arrived, Officer Tripp had been joined by Sergeant Piazza and another Bettendorf police officer. The officers collectively approached room 29 and knocked on the door. Eventually, Baldón opened the door. A young woman, later revealed to be a minor, was observed sitting on the bed. Peterson greeted Baldón and explained that the parole agreement authorized the officers to conduct a search of the motel room and Baldon’s vehicle. The search of the motel room and Bal-don’s person yielded no .2d 999, 1001 (2012) (<HOLDING>); State v. Benton, 82 Ohio St.3d 316, 695
holding that notwithstanding an agreement the state still must have reasonable grounds for investigating whether a parolee has violated the terms of parole or committed a crime holding that parole status alone is insufficient to justify search of a parolee holding parolee consented to search of his email based on the parole agreement holding that arrest of a parolee for parole violation does not trigger the speedy trial period for the underlying offense holding parolee waives constitutional searchandseizure rights by voluntarily signing parole agreement