McDaniel was on parole, and his cohabitant Sanders was present when the police searched their apartment in a “protective sweep” after a reported disturbance in the building. In one of the bedrooms, officers found drugs in a pair of work boots. The police were unaware that McDaniel was on parole at the time of the search. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the search was lawful because McDaniel was on parole, despite the officers lack of knowledge of that fact at the time. Here the Court held that the search was unlawful as to Sanders because of Robles, which held that the search of a residence could not be justified by the circumstance that the defendant’s brother, who lived in the residence was on probation and subject to a search condition of which the police were unaware at the time of the search. As to McDaniel, the parolee, the majority decided that whether the parolee has a reasonable expectation of privacy is inextricably linked to knowledge and whether the search is reasonable. An officer who is aware that a suspect is on parole and subject to a search condition may search; an officer who is not aware of the search condition may not justify it after the fact as acting pursuant to the conditions of parole. The majority recognizes that they might be willing to limit the Tyrell J. decision, even for a minor, where the warrantless search is of a residence as opposed to the minor’s person.