United States v. Mabry
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18341
10th Cir.2013Background
- Mabry, a parolee in Kansas, signed parole conditions consenting to searches of his person, residence, and property.
- Parole officer Marquez learned Mabry had been in a Utah car stopped with 22 pounds of marijuana (another parolee was arrested); an Order to Arrest and Detain was issued for Mabry.
- SEO Evans and Wichita officers went to Mabry’s girlfriend’s residence; Evans encountered the girlfriend at the door, Mabry emerged from the back, and officers entered and arrested him.
- Evans observed what he believed to be marijuana on a tray under the coffee table; officers searched the home—Officer Tiede went to the basement where she saw a firearm in plain view and brought it upstairs.
- Mabry was charged with unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun and moved to suppress the weapon as the product of an unlawful Fourth Amendment search; the district court denied suppression and Mabry appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to search Mabry’s residence under Kansas law | Mabry: officers lacked sufficient, timely suspicion; Utah events too remote; search policy not followed | Government: officers had reliable info (Mabry was in car with large marijuana seizure), plus in-home indications (nervous girlfriend, apparent marijuana in plain view) supporting reasonable suspicion | Affirmed: under the totality of circumstances officers had reasonable suspicion to search |
| Whether Mabry’s parole condition diminished his Fourth Amendment privacy interest | Mabry: diminished interest challenged but argued search procedures/state policy flaws invalidate search | Government: Mabry knowingly agreed to search condition, which significantly diminished privacy expectations | Held: Mabry’s signed search condition significantly diminished his expectation of privacy |
| Effect of failure to follow Kansas DOC policy requiring supervisor approval before residence search | Mabry: procedural noncompliance renders search invalid under state law and Fourth Amendment | Government: failure to follow internal policy is a factor but does not automatically invalidate a search if reasonable under general Fourth Amendment principles | Held: Noncompliance was a minimal factor; search nonetheless reasonable under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees may be subject to suspicionless searches under state law; state law can define permissible parolee searches)
- United States v. Warren, 566 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses totality-of-the-circumstances exception and reduced privacy for parolees)
- United States v. Freeman, 479 F.3d 743 (10th Cir. 2007) (parolee status plus criminal history alone do not supply reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2002) (parole searches can be upheld under general Fourth Amendment principles even if state procedures not strictly followed)
- Elwell v. Byers, 699 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2012) (appellate courts may affirm on any record-supported ground)
- United States v. Eckhart, 569 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Johnson, 364 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2004) (nervousness can be a relevant factor in reasonable-suspicion analysis)