45 Cal.App.5th 965
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In Sept. 2014 a Redwood City home was burglarized; surveillance showed a truck registered to Delrio and a suspect who closely resembled him.
- Officers learned Delrio was on active parole, went to his home, and conducted a warrantless parole search under Penal Code §3067.
- During the search officers found Delrio’s cell phone; an officer asked for the passcode, Delrio complied, and officers used a Cellebrite to download the phone’s contents.
- Minutes after the search Delrio called an officer, showed a photo of himself with cash, admitted involvement in the burglary, and said he’d falsely reported his truck stolen.
- Delrio moved to suppress the phone evidence (arguing the CDCR parole form’s unchecked electronic-device conditions left him with a reasonable expectation of privacy); the trial court denied the motion, he pled guilty, and appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: even if Delrio had some privacy expectation from form ambiguity, the totality of circumstances (parole status plus specific suspicion of burglary) made the warrantless search reasonable and not arbitrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless parole search of a parolee’s cell phone is reasonable when the CDCR form did not check special electronic-device conditions | Parole-search statute and general condition covering “any property under your control” permits searches of phones; unchecked boxes irrelevant; officers knew parole status and had articulable reasons to suspect burglary | Unchecked electronic-device boxes made the parole-search scope ambiguous, so Delrio retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone (Riley supports heightened phone privacy) | Search reasonable. Any privacy interest did not outweigh government interests given parole status and specific, articulable suspicion; judgment affirmed |
| Whether Riley requires warrants for cell-phone searches in the parole context | Riley addresses search-incident-to-arrest, not parole searches; parole exception differs | Riley’s recognition of unique phone privacy supports requiring warrants for phones absent clear parole notice | Riley distinguished; court assumed arguendo some expectation might exist but balanced totality of circumstances and declined to apply Riley to invalidate the parole search |
| Whether the search was arbitrary, capricious, or harassing | Search was targeted to investigate suspected burglary and tied to parole supervision/public safety | Ambiguity in form and lack of explicit consent rendered the search arbitrary | Not arbitrary or harassing: officers had legitimate law-enforcement/parole reasons, conducted search at reasonable hour, not prolonged |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees have diminished privacy; suspicionless parole searches reasonable under totality of circumstances)
- People v. Schmitz, 55 Cal.4th 909 (2012) (parole-search reasonableness determined by totality of circumstances; scope not strictly tied to literal wording of notice)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones are minicomputers implicating heightened privacy; warrantless search-incident-to-arrest of phones generally impermissible)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (accessing historical cell-site location information is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness balances privacy intrusion against governmental interests)
- People v. Reyes, 19 Cal.4th 743 (1998) (parole/probation searches violate Fourth Amendment when arbitrary, capricious, or harassing)