NINTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT SEARCH CONDITION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE IS NOT TOO INTRUSIVE
An intrusive search condition imposed on a defendant who pled to a financial crime was not an abuse of discretion. In fact, it almost cannot be an abuse of discretion under Samson.
The district court could justifiably be concerned that defendant's conduct was not aberrational, despite his claims to the contrary. United States v. Betts, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29063 (9th Cir. December 14, 2007):
Betts argued that the court abused its discretion because he had no prior convictions and had fully accepted responsibility for his crime. But the Ninth Circuit stated it could not characterize the trial court's exercise of discretion as an abuse, although it admitted the search condition was very intrusive. The court reasoned that the public is entitled to protection against the possibility that Betts's conduct may not have been so aberrational as he contends. It also considered his skill and success in committing this subtle fraud, protection will not be easy.
The Ninth Circuit also dicussed application of Samson v. California, where a similarly worded condition imposed by statute on all California parolees did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the condition did not require reasonable suspicion.
The Court considered the high risk of recidivism for people convicted of crimes, and the problem that "[i]mposing a reasonable suspicion requirement ... would give parolees greater opportunity to anticipate searches and conceal criminality."
Because the blanket requirement imposed by California on state parolees did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a fortiori the individualized requirement imposed in Betts' case on supervised release does not. The court reasoned that there is no sound reason for distinguishing parole from supervised release with respect to Fourth Amendment waivers. The federal system has abolished parole, and uses supervised release to supervise felons after they get out of prison.
