{"argument_date":"2001-11-06T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-11-06T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2001","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Stewart stated the opposing side was convicted of a misdemeanor drug offense.","Ms. Fox argued the government failed to establish effective consent to search.","Ms. Fox noted that detecting drug abuse may dispense with individualized suspicion.","Mr. Stewart cited California having over 67,000 police officers and 7,000 probation officers."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 56, lines 21-25"}]}],"caption":"United States v. Knights","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:32.903600Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:32.925400Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether a warrantless search of a probationer requires specific evidence of criminal activity.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-11-06T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2001","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/00-1260.html","primary_docket":"00-1260","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T17:31:34.332785Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The case involves a probationer convicted of a misdemeanor drug offense. The government argues the search was valid under probation terms. The defense claims the government failed to prove effective consent."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 56, lines 21-25"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["The government seeks to uphold the search as valid under probation conditions.","The defense seeks to suppress evidence by proving the lack of effective consent."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["The government argues that detecting drug abuse justifies dispensing with individualized suspicion.","The defense argues that the government failed to establish effective consent to the search."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the argument."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 56, lines 21-25"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the scope of police authority over probationers. It determines whether individualized suspicion is required for warrantless searches. The outcome impacts the balance between public safety and privacy rights."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 7-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 21-25","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 56, lines 21-25"}]}],"slug":"2001-00-1260-united-states-v-knights","term":"2001","title":"Can police search a probationer without individualized suspicion?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 45-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 25-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 25-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 47-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2001/00-1260.pdf","page_label":"file page 54, lines 47-29"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}