United States v. Richard Jackson, 866 F.3d 982

Jackson, on supervised release for failure to register as a sex offender, was required to reside at a residential reentry facility and follow its rules, which he signed and that expressly allowed searches of items brought onto the premises.
The Facility prohibited possession of cell phones inside the facility (phones could be stored in an entrance locker) and posted signs warning that property was subject to search.
March 16: a probation officer confiscated Jackson’s phone after finding it in the facility, returned it without searching, and warned that a second violation would lead to confiscation and search.
March 21: staff recovered Jackson’s phone in another resident’s possession; a residential officer confirmed ownership, obtained Jackson’s passcode, and examined the device, revealing pornographic material; a probation officer then searched further and found potentially underage material.
Investigators later obtained a warrant and forensic exam revealed 37 images of child pornography; Jackson was charged with possession of child pornography and moved to suppress the evidence from the warrantless searches.
The district court denied suppression (adopting a magistrate’s report that officers had reasonable suspicion); on appeal the court considered whether any suspicion was required and ruled Jackson lacked a legitimate privacy expectation in the phone, so the searches were permissible.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search of Jackson’s cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment	Search required suspicion or a warrant under Riley; phone contents are highly private	No suspicion necessary because Jackson, as a supervised-release resident in a reentry facility, had a diminished expectation of privacy and was on notice that property was searchable	Held: No legitimate expectation of privacy; search reasonable without antecedent suspicion
Whether Riley v. California controls searches of cell phones in the supervised-release/reentry facility context	Riley’s warrant requirement for cell-phone searches should apply	Riley applied to arrestees, not to supervised-releasees in custodial-like programs with diminished privacy	Held: Riley not controlling given supervised-release context and facility rules

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless searches of parolees reasonable given diminished privacy and substantial government interests)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (generally requires a warrant to search cell-phone data incident to arrest)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (supervised-release/parole is a form of criminal sanction and supports special search conditions)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (describing parole as conditional release subject to rules)
United States v. Makeeff, 820 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2016) (supervised releasees have highly circumscribed expectations of privacy)
United States v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 446 (2d Cir. 2002) (discussing supervised release as punishment additional to incarceration)
United States v. Huart, 735 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2013) (upholding search of a parolee/resident’s phone under diminished privacy expectations)