The federal appeals court based in Denver has agreed that a parole officer cannot be held liable for arresting a man without probable cause contrary to state law because such conduct does not clearly violate the Fourth Amendment.

A lower court judge found that Matthew Stegner, the community parole officer for Jason Alan Cappelli, appeared to act without authority from Colorado law when he and Lakewood police officers took Cappelli into custody in April 2019 with no probable cause of a crime or parole violation. But in Cappelli’s civil lawsuit against Stegner and the other government defendants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reiterated its prior determination that parolees can, in fact, be arrested without probable cause under the U.S. Constitution.

“Nor does (Cappelli) cite any case, from any jurisdiction, holding that a parole officer must have probable cause or comply with state law in order to take a parolee into custody without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment,” wrote Senior Judge Bobby R. Baldock for the three-judge panel that heard Cappelli’s appeal.

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches and seizures. For searches of people who are on parole, there are two exceptions to the warrant requirement. First, because supervision of parolees is a “special need” of the government, parolees can be searched without a warrant because they are still under legal custody. Second, parole officers can search a parolee without so much as reasonable suspicion if the “totality of the circumstances” allows it.

Cappelli had been on parole since December 2015, and he was required to allow Stegner to search him or his residence during visits. Vincent C. Todd, with whom Capelli lived, also agreed to those terms.

According to the lawsuit, Stegner visited Todd’s home on April 17 and 19 in 2017. The second time, Stegner, another community parole officer and Lakewood police officers participated in the search. Stegner reportedly discovered a stun gun behind a locked door and a doorbell video camera on the home. Police also allegedly questioned Stegner about an arson on Green Mountain.

Police took Cappelli into custody based on Stegner’s findings during the search. The Colorado State Parole Board subsequently held a hearing in May 2017 on Cappelli’s alleged parole violation – the doorbell camera – and acquitted him. Cappelli and Todd filed a federal lawsuit the following month over the search and arrest.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer first determined that given the totality-of-the-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment, Stegner was authorized to search the residence of Cappelli and Todd, even without any suspicion. As to Cappelli’s arrest, the judge granted Stegner qualified immunity.

Under qualified immunity, which shields government employees from liability unless they violate a clearly-established legal right, prior court decisions are typically required in order to label specific conduct as unreasonable. Brimmer acknowledged that Stegner’s arrest of Cappelli without probable cause was a constitutional violation, but noted that no courts have deemed such actions clearly unreasonable, “especially when the parolee is living in a house where he knows that one of the residents has a stun gun.”

Brimmer dismissed the case in its entirety in March 2021, finding that the remaining Lakewood officers who participated in Cappelli’s search and arrest were not liable because they were acting at Stegner’s direction. Because a parole officer, relying on the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment, may search a parolee without a warrant, Stegner could also bring and rely upon law enforcement to help him carry out that task, Brimmer noted.

The 10th Circuit agreed with that conclusion, and dismissed Cappelli and Todd’s implication that police were actually using Stegner to conduct their own investigation, rather than Stegner directing the police during a parole visit.

The case is Cappelli et al. v. Hoover et al.