Can a parole officer search the home of a probationer's wife's home without a warrant?

'It is well established that the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment is not an absolute any may be abridged where a compelling public interest so requires. In People v. Triche (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 198, at page 203, 306 P.2d 616, at page 618, such interest was acknowledged in the following language: 'We need not decide in general how far the right of a parole officer extends to search premises which are not under the exclusive control of his parolee or to which the relation of his parolee is not known with certainty. . . . Here, the defendants, although not married, actually lived together in the apartment which they had rented as if they were a married couple. We have no doubt that the fact that a parolee is married and is living with his wife will not prevent the parole officer from searching his premises without a warrant when there is reasonable cause to believe that he has violated his parole; the wife will be in no position to complain of violation of her right of privacy, which because of her living with a parolee subject to special rules of supervision, Must be to some extent restricted in the public interest. We see no reason why the same should not apply to the woman who lives with a parolee as if they were a married couple, without such actully being the case.' (Italics added.) Parole and probation are equally important aspects of the state's penal system and optimum successful functioning thereof is of compelling public interest. There is no practical difference between a parolee and a probationer that affects the issues of the present case.