United States v. Dejesus, 538 F.Supp.3d 382

Defendant Malik DeJesus was on New York state parole (term extended to June 12, 2020) and had signed a Certificate of Release acknowledging that his person, residence, and property were subject to search.
Parole Officer Elvis Guerrero, informed in April 2019 by a USPIS investigator that DeJesus was under investigation for a check-washing scheme and aware of a May 2019 arrest involving credit cards, monitored DeJesus’s social media and observed signs of unexplained wealth (BMW, jewelry, designer clothes).
On February 20, 2020 Guerrero selected DeJesus for a “random parole safety search”; Guerrero and other parole officers (with NYPD as backup) entered DeJesus’s apartment, handcuffed him, and searched his bedroom.
Officers observed a magnetic card reader, a bag of checks, IDs and credit cards in plain view; a safe at the foot of the bed was moved to the kitchen; shining a flashlight into holes in the safe revealed a firearm.
NYPD secured the premises, obtained a state search warrant later that day, executed it, and recovered a firearm, ammunition, cash, credit cards and IDs from the safe; those items led to federal prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
DeJesus moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unconstitutional warrantless search; the court denied suppression, finding the parole search lawful under applicable Fourth Amendment principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Was the warrantless parole search constitutional?	Govt: Parole searches are permitted when rationally and reasonably related to parole duties; Officer Guerrero acted within duty.	DeJesus: The search was arbitrary/harassing and not reasonably related to parole supervision.	Held: Search constitutional; parole officer acted within supervisory duties.
2) Is reasonable suspicion required for a New York parole home search (Huntley v. Samson tension)?	Govt: Samson permits suspicionless searches so long as not arbitrary/capricious; alternatively, reasonable suspicion existed here.	DeJesus: New York law (Huntley) requires a reasonably substantial relation to parole duties and Second Circuit precedent implies a need for reasonable suspicion.	Held: Court need not resolve Samson/Huntley conflict; found at least reasonable suspicion here, satisfying both standards.
3) Was seizure of the safe and subsequent warrant/search lawful?	Govt: Items were in plain view during a lawful parole search; parole officers and NYPD properly seized and later obtained a warrant.	DeJesus: Evidence is fruit of an unlawful search and must be suppressed.	Held: Plain-view observation and seizure lawful; subsequent warrant and recovery of firearm valid; suppression denied.

People v. Huntley, 371 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1977) (sets New York rule that parole searches must be "rationally and reasonably related" to parole officer’s duty)
United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2004) (applies Huntley standard in parole-search context)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (upholds suspicionless searches of parolees under California law unless arbitrary or harassing)
United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) (probation/parole searches may involve law enforcement backup without automatically rendering search unlawful)
United States v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 446 (2d Cir. 2002) (parole officer’s duty includes detecting parole violations and preventing further crimes)
United States v. Barner, 666 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2012) (warrantless parole search upheld where tied to recent information suggesting danger/crime)
United States v. Grimes, 225 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses relationship between Huntley and Fourth Amendment standards)
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing for searches of supervised persons)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (supervised-release searches permissible under special-needs framework when regulation satisfies reasonableness)
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (2015) (search-warrant exception principles for administrative searches)
United States v. Massey, 461 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2006) (plain-view seizure by parole/probation officer is permissible)