United States v. Steven Cervantes, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10763

Cervantes pleaded guilty in California state court to non-violent felonies and received a split ("divided") sentence under Cal. Penal Code § 1170(h)(5): 2 years jail + 1 year mandatory supervision.
As a condition of mandatory supervision, the sentencing court imposed a warrantless, suspicionless search condition covering his person, residence, premises, containers, and vehicles.
While on mandatory supervision, Cervantes was stopped for jaywalking; an officer searched him, found a hotel room key, confirmed he was subject to a search condition, then (without a warrant) went to the hotel and searched the room while Cervantes and his girlfriend were out.
Officers discovered counterfeit currency and equipment in the hotel room; Cervantes was later arrested and federally charged with possessing counterfeit currency and images in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 474.
Cervantes moved to suppress the hotel-room evidence as an unconstitutional warrantless, suspicionless search; the district court denied suppression, convicted him after a stipulated-facts bench trial, and imposed supervised release with a similar search condition.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed (1) whether mandatory supervision should be treated as parole or probation for Fourth Amendment analysis, (2) whether the hotel-room search was authorized by Cervantes’ search condition, and (3) whether the supervised-release search condition was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Classification of mandatory supervision for Fourth Amendment purposes	Mandatory supervision is distinct and should not be treated like parole	Mandatory supervision is analogous to parole and should follow parole precedent	Mandatory supervision is more akin to parole than probation for Fourth Amendment analysis
Validity of warrantless, suspicionless search of the hotel room	Search violated the Fourth Amendment; condition did not authorize searching a hotel room where he was a temporary guest	Search was authorized by the clear, unambiguous terms of the search condition covering "premises" under his control	Search was reasonable: hotel room was "premises" under Cervantes’ control and officers had probable cause to believe it was under his control, so search condition authorized the search
Imposition of a warrantless, suspicionless supervised-release search condition	Condition is overbroad and amounts to greater-than-necessary liberty deprivation; inadequate notice	Condition permissible when tailored to risk and statutory/Sentencing Commission requirements; district court satisfied discretion given Cervantes’ record	No abuse of discretion: given Cervantes’ extensive criminal history and prior supervision violations, the condition was reasonably necessary

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (Fourth Amendment analysis for parolees and diminished privacy expectations)
United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2007) (parolee residence searches under search conditions can be reasonable)
United States v. King, 736 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2013) (probation case limiting reach to violent offenders)
United States v. King, 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (discussing parole/probation search-condition precedent)
Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (probable-cause requirement as to parolee's residence to protect third-party privacy)
United States v. Franklin, 603 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2010) (motel room may qualify as "residence" depending on circumstances)
United States v. Grandberry, 730 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting reliance on a property clause to bypass residence probable-cause requirement)