United States v. Anthony Ped
943 F.3d 427
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- In April–June 2016, Santa Paula officers received from a probation officer a list identifying Nick Wilson as living at the Eliot Street house (also Anthony Ped’s family home); Wilson was on post-release supervision that authorized warrantless searches of his residence.
- Officers had previously visited the Eliot Street address and been told Wilson lived there; later they responded to a disturbance and again were told Wilson lived there.
- Wilson was arrested and held for three months; upon release he told his probation officer he would live in Newbury Park, but the probation officer did not update the list given to police.
- About ten days after Wilson’s release, officers—unaware Wilson had moved—went to the Eliot Street house for a routine parolee search; hearing a commotion they entered, saw Ped with a meth pipe, and found seven firearms; Ped admitted the guns were his and that he was a felon.
- Ped pleaded guilty (preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling); the district court denied his suppression motion and sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed the search as lawful under the parolee-search framework but vacated and remanded three supervised-release conditions as unconstitutionally vague and requiring district-court resentencing-in-part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless search of residence under parolee exception | Ped: Officers lacked probable cause to believe parolee Wilson lived at the house; search thus violated the Fourth Amendment | United States: Officers reasonably relied on probation list and prior contacts showing Wilson lived there; entry/search therefore lawful | Held: Search lawful — officers had probable cause based on the list and corroborating prior visits; failure to know of Wilson’s move did not negate reasonableness |
| Whether officers had to verify the address or accept residents’ statements denying residency | Ped: Officers should have accepted Ped and his mother’s contemporaneous statements that Wilson no longer lived there | United States: Officers could disbelieve unverified statements and proceed because they had preexisting probable cause | Held: Officers were not required to cease the search absent convincing evidence undermining their prior information; occupants’ statements were not sufficiently credible |
| State-law claim of arbitrary/harassing search under California law | Ped: Evidence (officer comments) showed improper motive or harassment, rendering search unreasonable under state law | United States: Remarks and isolated comments do not prove improper purpose; Ped did not meet burden | Held: Ped failed to show officers acted for an improper purpose; claim did not justify suppression |
| Validity and remedy for vague supervised-release conditions | Ped: Conditions requiring supporting dependents, working, and notifying third parties are unconstitutionally vague and should be corrected | United States: originally urged modification on appeal but later agreed conditions were plain error; suggested either rewriting or remand | Held: Conditions are unconstitutionally vague per Evans and must be vacated; statute 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1) requires remand to district court to craft appropriate replacements rather than the court of appeals rewriting them |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (warrantless home entries are presumptively unreasonable)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees have diminished expectations of privacy permitting suspicionless searches)
- Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (officers may rely on parolee-provided address lists; must have probable cause that parolee resides at the location)
- United States v. Grandberry, 730 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2013) (probable-cause-as-to-residence requires an officer of reasonable caution to believe parolee lives at the residence)
- United States v. Cuevas, 531 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2008) (parolee-search cases may require additional verification when address information is stale)
- United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018) (certain standard supervised-release conditions are unconstitutionally vague)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (statutory mandate that when a sentence is imposed in violation of law, the court of appeals shall remand for further sentencing proceedings)