{"id":51218,"date":"2022-01-22T08:42:39","date_gmt":"2022-01-22T13:42:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=51218"},"modified":"2022-01-22T09:55:50","modified_gmt":"2022-01-22T14:55:50","slug":"ca9-supervised-release-condition-of-cell-phone-searches-was-reasonable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=51218","title":{"rendered":"CA9: Supervised release condition of cell phone searches was reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>\u201cKoyanagi next challenges the special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit to periodic suspicionless searches of his electronic data. [\u00b6] Koyanagi&#8217;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&#8217; electronic data); United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2007) (suspicionless searches of federal supervisees do not violate Fourth Amendment).\u201d This was a result of his crime. <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/memoranda\/2022\/01\/21\/21-10124.pdf\">United States v. Koyanagi<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1752 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2022)*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>PCR petitioner\u2019s 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. <a href=\"https:\/\/courts.delaware.gov\/Opinions\/Download.aspx?id=328830\">Dunnell v. State<\/a>, 2022 Del. LEXIS 26 (Jan. 20, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cKoyanagi next challenges the special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit to periodic suspicionless searches of his electronic data. [\u00b6] Koyanagi&#8217;s constitutional challenges to this condition are unavailing. See United States v. Bare, 806 F.3d 1011, 1018 n.4 &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=51218\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-probationparole-search"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=51218"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51224,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51218\/revisions\/51224"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=51218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=51218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=51218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}