CA11: Electronic search condition was discretionary for “chronic lawbreaker”

An electronic search condition for supervised release was not an abuse of discretion where defendant was an admitted “chronic lawbreaker” and not even a sex offender. United States v. Taylor, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15125 (11th Cir. May 21, 2021):

With these principles in mind, it is clear that Taylor has failed to show that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing the electronic search condition as a special condition of his supervised release. Although the electronic search condition did not relate directly to Taylor’s firearm offense, it was reasonably related to Taylor’s history as a recidivist and the statutory goals of deterring him from future potentially dangerous offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3); Moran, 573 F.3d at 1139-41 (upholding a release condition unrelated to the defendant’s instant offense, but where the condition specifically related to the defendant’s prior convictions).

Further, Taylor was not a “normal non-sex offender.” Indeed, Taylor has conceded that he was a chronic lawbreaker. The District Court recognized this fact and repeatedly noted its concern that Taylor would continue to purchase and possess both drugs and guns. From there, it was entirely reasonable for the District Court to conclude that Taylor may purchase those drugs and guns over the internet. A mere search of a physical space—as the District Court pointed out—would be far less likely to reveal such violations. So, even though Taylor was not a sex offender, it was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to impose an electronic search condition here.

Lastly, Taylor argues that the electronic search condition was vague and overbroad because it allowed “unfettered access to content across any number of devices” and because the phrase “areas to be searched” was ambiguous. But we can dispose of these arguments quickly. First, the electronic search condition was not overbroad because it allowed access only at a reasonable time, when there was reasonable suspicion of a violation, and where the specific area to be searched contained evidence of that violation. And second, the phrase “areas to be searched” was not vague because the specific areas to be searched were enumerated in the search condition, and the commonsense meaning of the phrase—especially as it referred back to a list of enumerated areas—was plain. In fact, the search condition here was clear that it authorized a search of only the area thought to contain the violation.

See Holston v. Rosa, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97147 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2021)* (TRO denied against electronic search condition imposed on plaintiff. He can’t possibly prevail under Samson.) posted later today.