CA9: PC needed to believe parolee lives in place to be searched

The government had no probable cause under Samson to believe that the defendant was actually living in the place they entered to find him. He had a key, and he’d been seen there some, but surveillance did not show that he actually lived there. There was also a “property under your control” condition, and the court declines to expand that to include a place he happened to have a key to. The court was applying Ninth Circuit precedent under Samson, which it did not find inconsistent. United States v. Grandberry, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19180 (9th Cir. September 17, 2013):

Assuming, without deciding, that Grandberry exhibited a sufficiently strong connection to the apartment to demonstrate “control” over it, we conclude that an expansive understanding of the “property under your control” condition, if applied to residential locations, cannot coexist with our longstanding probable-cause-as-to-residence requirement. As we are bound by our precedent, we conclude that the “property under your control” provision cannot refer to a place where someone else, but not the parolee, lives.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.