United States v. Baker, 658 F.3d 1050

Baker was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine; the jury acquitted him of felony drug charges and the district court sentenced him to three years' probation.
Two probation conditions were challenged: (i) suspicionless searches by officers, and (ii) DNA collection under a federal statute.
The government alleged large quantities of methamphetamine were involved; the conviction reflects 9.91 grams of actual methamphetamine found in the vehicle.
On appeal, Baker challenged the DNA condition as beyond the district court's statutory authority and challenged the suspicionless search condition as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment; the government defended both conditions.
The panel affirmed the conviction and the suspicionless-search condition, but reversed regarding the DNA condition and remanded to strike it and expunge any DNA records collected under it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady violation not disclosed Deputy Thompson statement	Baker argues Brady was violated by withholding Thompson's negative testimony.	Government contends evidence was disclosed and no Brady violation occurred.	No Brady violation; district court's denial of motion to dismiss affirmed.
Constitutionality of suspicionless search condition	Baker challenges that a probationer can be subjected to searches without any individualized suspicion.	Government maintains reduced privacy and public safety justify the condition.	Facial challenge rejected; suspicionless-search condition upheld.
Statutory authority to impose DNA collection condition	DNA condition exceeds statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. § 14135a for probationers.	Statute and implementing regulation permit DNA collection for those on release, including probationers.	District court exceeded authority; remand to strike DNA condition and expunge DNA records.

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (suspicionless parole searches constitutional; privacy expectations differ for parolees and probationers)
Knights v. United States Supreme Court, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (probation searches with reasonable suspicion; open question whether suspicionless searches are permissible)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1987) (probation search of home without a warrant with reasonable grounds allowed)
Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (parole/probation conditions and Fourth Amendment expectations; later viewed as controlling by some panels)
Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (no constitutional difference between probation and parole for Fourth Amendment purposes (en banc))
Dupas, 419 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2005) (facial validity of search condition on direct appeal)
Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (supervised release condition challenge; facial challenge ripe on direct appeal)
Parrott, 992 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards for reviewing district court authority to impose probation conditions)
Begay, 622 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (constitutional and statutory interpretation de novo review)