CA9: Supervised release condition of cell phone searches was reasonable

“Koyanagi next challenges the special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit to periodic suspicionless searches of his electronic data. [¶] Koyanagi’s constitutional challenges to this condition are unavailing. See United States v. Bare, 806 F.3d 1011, 1018 n.4 (9th Cir. 2015) (Fourth Amendment does not prohibit searches of federal supervisees’ electronic data); United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2007) (suspicionless searches of federal supervisees do not violate Fourth Amendment).” This was a result of his crime. United States v. Koyanagi, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1752 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2022)*

The affidavit for warrant showed probable cause and the warrant was sufficiently particular. United States v. Briscoe, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10586 (D.Md. Jan. 20, 2022).*

PCR petitioner’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging nexus to his cell phone for its search fails. Defense counsel did, and that issue failed on the merits. Dunnell v. State, 2022 Del. LEXIS 26 (Jan. 20, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.