United States v. Raphael Oswald, 711 F. App'x 593

Defendant Raphael Oswald convicted of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), and theft of public money (18 U.S.C. § 641).
District court imposed a supervised-release condition requiring Oswald to submit to searches not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Oswald did not object to the search condition in district court and raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
Eleventh Circuit reviews unpreserved sentencing-condition challenges for plain error (four-part test).
The district court referenced Oswald’s criminal history and the need for deterrence and respect for the law when imposing conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the search condition on supervised release was improperly imposed and violated the Fourth Amendment	Oswald: court abused discretion by not adequately explaining why it imposed a suspicionless search condition and that condition violates the Fourth Amendment	Government: condition permissible under precedents allowing diminished expectation of privacy for parole/probation/supervised release and tied to sentencing factors	Court affirmed: no plain error — district court’s lack of explicit explanation not shown required by Eleventh Circuit/Supreme Court precedent; condition not clearly unconstitutional under current law

Carpenter v. United States, 803 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2015) (establishes plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing-condition challenges)
Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (sets three-part test for special conditions of supervised release under § 3583(d))
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless searches of parolees upheld due to diminished expectation of privacy)
Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982) (probation condition requiring warrantless searches held constitutional)
Gaskell, 134 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 1998) (recognizes similarity between probation and supervised release contexts)