UNITED STATES v. LEONARD (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-27No. No. 20-10406

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated and remanded, finding that although suspicionless search conditions do not violate the Fourth Amendment, the district court abused its discretion by imposing searches of electronic devices without making a factual finding linking such searches to the statutory purposes of supervised release.

Tommy Leonard challenged a supervised release condition that permitted warrantless searches of his person, residence, property, and electronic devices by probation and law enforcement officers. The appellate court determined that while the Fourth Amendment permits suspicionless searches of parolees and those on supervised release as a general matter, the district court overreached by including electronic devices and data without establishing a factual connection between computer use and the legitimate goals of supervised release—such as deterrence, public protection, or rehabilitation. The court found no apparent nexus in the record between Leonard's case and the need to search his electronic devices.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether suspicionless search conditions violate the Fourth Amendment during supervised release
Whether a district court must establish a nexus between electronic device searches and supervised release objectives
Scope of permissible search conditions on supervised release versus parole

Procedural posture

Leonard appealed the district court's imposition of a special supervised release condition allowing warrantless searches, and the appellate court reviewed the constitutional challenge de novo.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Tommy Leonard appeals the district courts 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 Rusnaks person and property).

2. We nevertheless vacate the suspicionless search condition because the district court ordered suspicionless searches of Leonards “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.