In prosecution on drug trafficking and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress search of his home under circumstances, where: (1) defendant was serving term of "extended supervision" at time of search; and (2) instant search was performed under section 302.113(7r) of Wisconsin Statutes. Privacy expectations of offenders, like defendant, who are on post-imprisonment supervision are weak and are substantially outweighed by govt.'s strong interest in preventing recidivism and safely reintegrating offenders into society. Moreover, said statute allowed search of defendant's home based only on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and police had such suspicion, where: (1) defendant's live-in girlfriend had previously told police that methamphetamine that she had ingested came from stash that defendant had shared; and (2) police had concern as to safety of girlfriend's children left in custody of defendant. Ct. also likened defendant's status as individual who was on judicially imposed parole, who had no greater expectation of privacy than parolee, and noted that under Samson, 547 U.S. 843, no-suspicion search of parolee was constitutionally permissible. As such, instant reasonable suspicion search under Wisc. statute was also constitutionally permissible.
