United States v. King
736 F.3d 805
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Marcel Daron King was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- King was on adult felony probation in San Francisco for willful infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5).
- King’s probation agreement included a warrantless search condition: searches at any time, with or without probable cause, by any peace, parole or probation officer.
- Officers searched King’s residence and found an unloaded shotgun later charged under § 922(g)(1).
- A district court denied suppression, ruling the search was supported by reasonable suspicion; the bench trial proceeded on stipulated facts for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a suspicionless probation search violates the Fourth Amendment. | Prosecution argues the search is permissible under Knights/Samson. | King contends the language did not unambiguously permit no-suspicion searches. | No-suspicion search upheld under Knights/Samson framework. |
| Does the specific wording of King’s probation search condition control the outcome? | Prosecution relies on plain terms and acceptance of the clause. | King’s condition did not clearly authorize searches without any suspicion. | Plain terms of the condition did not clearly permit warrantless searches without any suspicion. |
| Are government interests sufficient to justify a suspicionless search of a probationer? | Government interests (crime prevention, evidence preservation, reintegration) weigh heavily. | Interests are substantial but do not justify abandoning all suspicion requirements for probationers. | Government interests do not justify a blanket no-suspicion search given privacy interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probation search condition balanced against privacy interests; reasonable under totality of circumstances)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees have reduced privacy; probationer distinct; clear terms matter in privacy expectations)
- People v. Bravo, 238 P.2d 336 (Cal. 1987) (California case on probation search consent and scope)
- People v. Woods, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88; 21 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1999) (California law on probation search language; cited by majority)