United States v. Ibrahim Bare
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20396
9th Cir.2015Background
- Bare, a non-Indian living on the Navajo Reservation, fired a pistol over another person’s head during an altercation at his home; tribal police recovered a pistol and shell casing and federal agents later found multiple firearms and a paper ledger suggesting an in-home pawn business.
- Bare, a felon, was convicted by a jury of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- At resentencing the district court applied a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using a firearm in connection with another felony (disorderly conduct as defined by Arizona law) and imposed a supervised‑release condition authorizing suspicionless searches of Bare’s computers and electronic devices.
- Bare challenged (1) the enhancement’s applicability given the offense occurred on tribal land and (2) the computer-search condition as overly intrusive and unsupported by a nexus to his offense.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) the enhancement was proper because the Assimilative Crimes Act incorporates state felony disorderly‑conduct law into the federal offense committed in Indian Country; (2) the computer‑search condition was within the district court’s discretion because the court made a fact‑based nexus finding tying potential computer records to deterrence/public protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 4‑level enhancement applies when the related felony (disorderly conduct) occurred on tribal land | Bare: enhancement improper because the underlying felony arose in Indian Country and therefore is not equivalent to an Arizona state felony for Guidelines enhancement | Government: ACA incorporates state law into federal offenses in Indian Country, so conduct satisfies "another felony offense" for the enhancement | Held: Enhancement applies — ACA makes Arizona felony elements applicable; district court correctly applied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) |
| Whether a supervised‑release condition permitting warrantless searches of defendant’s personal computers is reasonable | Bare: condition is overbroad and lacks sufficient nexus to his offense; intrusive given privacy concerns (Riley) | Government: district court found a factual nexus (pawn business records likely to be electronic) tying the condition to deterrence and public protection | Held: Condition upheld — not an abuse of discretion where the court makes a supported factual nexus finding and limits searches to devices under defendant’s control |
| Scope of the required nexus between offense and electronics search condition | Bare/dissent: a direct nexus to the offense is required; electronics searches unjustified where defendant didn’t use computers in the crime | Majority/Government: only some nexus to sentencing goals (deterrence, protection, rehabilitation) is required; condition need not mirror the offense method | Held: Only a factual nexus to statutory goals is required; district court’s forward‑looking nexus finding suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees have diminished Fourth Amendment privacy; warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees can be permissible to reduce recidivism)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (searches of cellphones are highly intrusive because modern smartphones are "minicomputers")
- United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2007) (struck computer‑use restrictions that were overbroad where no meaningful nexus to the offense existed)
- United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (upheld broad search condition of "person and property" for a supervisee; recognized lesser privacy expectations for those on supervised release)
- United States v. Turnipseed, 159 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 1998) (upheld enhancement where defendant fired a handgun in violation of state assault statute)
- United States v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussed the Assimilative Crimes Act making state law applicable in Indian Country)
- United States v. Kaufman, 862 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1988) (applied ACA principles to federal prosecutions for conduct mirroring state law)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard for reviewing factual findings for clear error when assessing district court abuse of discretion)