Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Tommy Leonard appeals the district court's imposition of a special condition of supervised release requiring that he submit “his person, residence, office, vehicle, or any property under his control” to searches “by a United States Probation Officer or any federal, state or local law enforcement officer at any time with or without suspicion.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We “generally review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion,” but we review constitutional challenges to supervised release conditions de novo. United States v. Gibson, 998 F.3d 415, 418 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). We vacate and remand.
1. The challenged search condition does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.”); United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2007) (“There is no sound reason for distinguishing parole from supervised release with respect to [a supervised release search] condition.”); United States v. Rusnak, 981 F.3d 697, 712 (9th Cir. 2020) (rejecting Fourth Amendment challenge to a condition permitting suspicionless searches of Rusnak's person and property).
2. We nevertheless vacate the suspicionless search condition because the district court ordered suspicionless searches of Leonard's “electronic devices and their data, including cell phones, computers, and electronic storage media” without making “a properly supported factual finding” that “establish[es] some nexus between computer use” and the supervised release goals of deterrence, public protection, or rehabilitation. United States v. Bare, 806 F.3d 1011, 1013, 1017 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B)–(D)). Any nexus is not apparent from the record. See United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012) (clarifying that the district court need not state reasons for supervised release conditions only “if the reasoning is apparent from the record”). We remand for the district court either to modify the search condition consistent with this decision or make the appropriate findings.
VACATED & REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-10406
Decided: August 27, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)