CA11: District court didn’t commit plain error by imposing suspicionless supervised release condition

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud, and the district court imposed a condition of suspicionless searches for supervised releases. He complains that the court didn’t adequately explain the justification. No case says that the district court needed to, and there is no plain error. Defendant’s criminal history likely was enough. United States v. Oswald, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3769 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2018).

Defendant alleges a Franks violation, but he doesn’t show anything was false or material. The motion to suppress was properly denied. Smith v. State, 2018 OK CR 4, 2018 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 4 (Feb. 16, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.