United States v. Jeremy Payne, 99 F.4th 495

Jeremy Travis Payne, a California parolee, was stopped by CHP officers and found with cash, a key ring (including a BMW key), and a phone, after appearing nervous during a traffic stop.
Payne was subject to both a general parole condition (searchable at any time without warrant or cause) and a specific condition requiring him to provide digital device access, subject to arrest/confiscation for refusal.
CHP officers forcibly used Payne’s thumb to unlock his phone when he refused to give up his passcode, discovering evidence connecting him to narcotics trafficking at a specific residence.
A search warrant for the Palm Desert residence was obtained based largely on evidence recovered from Payne’s phone; police found drugs, cash, and paraphernalia at that location.
Payne entered a conditional guilty plea after his motion to suppress the evidence was denied, challenging the search under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on appeal.

Issue	Payne’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Scope of Parole Search Conditions	Officers violated the terms of special search condition by forcibly unlocking phone (should have only confiscated or arrested).	General parole search condition authorized search of all property, including the phone; special conditions impose additional, not limiting, obligations.	General condition controls; search was authorized and reasonable.
Arbitrary, Capricious, or Harassing Search	Search was arbitrary/capricious after no contraband was found on Payne or in car.	Search had valid law enforcement purpose based on parole status and Payne’s suspicious behavior.	Not arbitrary or harassing; search was reasonable.
Fifth Amendment – Compelled Biometric Unlock	Forcibly using thumb to unlock the phone was testimonial and violated self-incrimination privilege.	Physical act of using thumb is not testimonial under the Fifth Amendment, similar to fingerprints/blood draws.	Not testimonial; no Fifth Amendment violation.
Validity of Evidence from Residence	Pre-warrant search of home tainted warrant, so all evidence from home must be suppressed.	Even without pre-warrant search, warrant was supported by probable cause based on phone evidence.	Warrant valid and evidence admissible, even if pre-warrant entry was improper.

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (warrantless, suspicionless searches of parolees may be reasonable under Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (totality of the circumstances governs reasonableness of probation or parole searches)
United States v. Johnson, 875 F.3d 1265 (warrantless parolee searches, including of cell phones, generally reasonable)
Fischer v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (production of documents analysis under Fifth Amendment privilege)
Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (act of production doctrine – distinction between physical act and testimonial communication)
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (act of production and testimonial compulsion under Fifth Amendment)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (physical acts, such as blood draws, not testimonial under Fifth Amendment)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (compelled physical characteristics not testimonial)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant required to search digital contents of phone incident to arrest, but not extended to parole searches)