In United States v. Ped, --- F.3d ---, No. 18-50179 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court affirmed the denial of the defendant's suppression motion but vacated a few supervised release conditions.
I believe this is the first published criminal case by the newly appointed Judge Miller.
The Court found the warrantless home search here was permissible because the police had probable cause to believe the defendant's brother (who was on post-release community
supervision with a 4th waiver) lived at the house. This was so despite the fact that the defendant and the defendant's mother told police he did not live there and the brother having previously reported that he did not live there. The Court concluded that the officers
reasonably relied on a probation list, notwithstanding that it was
three months old.
As to the supervised release issue, the district
court required that the defendant “support his . . . dependents and meet
other family responsibilities,” that he “work regularly at a
lawful occupation,” and that he “notify third parties of risks
that may be occasioned by [his] criminal record or personal
history or characteristics.
Based on Circuit precedent, the Court found these conditions were unconstitutionally vague. The Court held it needed to remand the case to the district court, rather than rewrite the conditions: “a remand is required under
§ 3742(f)(1) whenever the reviewing court concludes that
the sentence was imposed 'in violation of law.'”
