UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-09-07No. No. 21-1796

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is affirmed, and the search condition imposed on Johnson's supervised release is upheld as a valid exercise of the district court's discretion.

Clarence Johnson, a career offender serving supervised release for drug convictions, failed a drug test. The district court responded by adding a special condition to his release requiring him to submit to searches of his person, property, residence, vehicles, computers, and electronic devices. The searches could be conducted by a probation officer at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, but only if the officer had reasonable suspicion that Johnson violated a release condition and believed the searched location contained evidence of the violation or contraband. Johnson objected to this added restriction.

The appellate court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing this search condition. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting Johnson's background as a career offender, his documented violation through the failed drug test, the legitimate need to monitor his compliance with supervision, and the safeguards built into the search language itself. The court acknowledged Johnson's argument that random drug testing alone might suffice but determined the district court properly weighed all relevant factors.

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

Key issues

Whether a search condition on supervised release impermissibly infringes liberty
Reasonableness and scope limitations on probation officer searches
Proper considerations in modifying supervised release terms after a violation

Procedural posture

Johnson appealed the district court's modification of his supervised release conditions to add a special search provision following his failed drug test.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Clarence Johnson is a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), who is serving a term of supervised release in connection with his convictions for drug offenses. After he admittedly failed a drug test, the district court

modified the terms of his release to include a special condition that he submit his “person, property, residence, adjacent structures, office, vehicle, papers, computers (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)), and other electronic communications or data storage devices or media” to a search conducted at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner by a probation officer, if the probation officer has reasonable suspicion to believe Johnson violated a condition of his supervised release and the place to be searched contains evidence of the violation or contraband. Johnson challenges the condition.

Having reviewed the record, we affirm. See United States v. Sterling, 959 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing modification of conditions of supervised release for an abuse of discretion). Considering Johnsons history, his current violation, the need to ensure his compliance on supervision, and the language limiting the scope of the searches, we conclude the district court did not abuse its broad discretion. See United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining the district court has broad discretion when imposing supervised release conditions that are reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary, and are consistent with pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements); see also Sterling, 959 F.3d at 859, 862 (upholding a special condition allowing a probation officer to search the defendant at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner upon reasonable suspicion, based in part on the defendants criminal history); United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 379-81 (8th Cir. 2017) (same). The record reflects the district court considered Johnsons arguments, including whether continuing random drug testing was sufficient to ensure his compliance. See Winston, 850 F.3d at 381.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsels motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.