Warrantless search condition imposed on defendant after guilty plea pending sentencing was valid. United States v. Thompson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93432 (W.D. Va. October 2, 2008):<\/p>\n
The defendant has failed to meet her burden of proving that the warrantless search condition is not needed to assure the safety of the community. The defendant points to United States v. Scott, 450 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the Ninth Circuit invalidated a search of a pretrial defendant’s residence where the search was based on conditions of bond that subjected him to a drug screen and a warrantless search. But the Ninth Circuit did not hold that pretrial release subject to a condition permitting warrantless searches was per se unreasonable. Instead, the court concluded that the pretrial defendant’s consent to search would be valid only if the search was reasonable, id. at 868, and the search of that particular defendant’s home was not justified by either special circumstances or the totality of the circumstances, id. at 872, 874.<\/p>\n
The case of United States v. Kills Enemy, 3 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 1993), is more on point. The court in Kills Enemy found that a warrantless search pursuant to a condition of release was permissible for an offender who had pled guilty and was awaiting sentencing. Id. at 1203 (noting that “[a] convicted person awaiting sentence is no longer entitled to a presumption of innocence or presumptively entitled to his freedom”).<\/p>\n
Moreover, beyond the legal argument presented, the defendant does not submit any facts or circumstances indicating that the warrantless search requirement is not needed in this case. The government aptly argues that the warrantless search condition protects the community against further identity theft while Thompson awaits sentencing. “Safety of the community” may include security against future criminal activity, and is not solely relegated to protection against physical violence. See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 13 (1983) (“[T]he language referring to the safety of the community refers to the danger that the defendant might engage in criminal activity to the detriment of the community. The committee intends that the concern about safety be given a broader construction than merely danger of harm involving physical violence.”).<\/p>\n
The defendant has not presented any evidence or argument regarding the other conditions imposed while she awaits sentencing. Therefore, the defendant has failed to meet her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that she would not be a danger to the community or a flight risk without the conditions currently imposed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading