CA7: Suspicionless supervised release search condition not justified here

A suspicionless supervised release search condition was not properly justified by the district court, and it’s reversed. United States v. Hinds, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20651 (7th Cir. October 27, 2014):

The search and seizure condition, special condition five, can be disposed of quickly. At oral argument, the government conceded that this invasive condition is no different from the one struck down in Farmer. See 755 F.3d at 854 (vacating a search condition that required “no suspicion, reasonable or otherwise,” to justify a search). The government also conceded the special condition deserved to be vacated and remanded.

We accept the government’s concessions. Because the search and seizure condition cannot be distinguished from the unlawfully broad and invasive condition in Farmer, we will vacate it today. In doing so, we do not rule out unannounced and random searches where appropriate, but we note that simply stating the condition “is being ordered based on the nature of the instant offense[,]” does little to justify its imposition.

On remand, any revision to the condition, if it is reimposed, should be accompanied by an explanation that connects the condition to the offense, Hinds’s history and personal characteristics, as well as society’s needs for deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation. See United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511, 523 (7th Cir. 2013).