United States v. Lara, No. 14-50120 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, contending that his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when probation officers conducted two warrantless, suspicionless searches of his cell phone. The court rejected the government's contention that defendant waived his Fourth Amendment rights where acceptance of the terms of probation, including suspicionless searches of his person and property, is one factor that bears on the reasonableness of the search, but it is not in itself dispositive. The court concluded that defendant had a privacy interest in his cell phone and the data it contained and that privacy interest was substantial in light of the broad amount of data contained in, or accessible through, his cell phone. Although defendant's privacy was somewhat diminished in light of his status as a probationer, it was not diminished or waived because he accepted as a condition of his probation a clear and unequivocal search provision authorizing cell phone searches (he did not) or because he subscribed to cell phone service using a different first name (he did). After balancing defendant's privacy interest and the government's interest in combating recidivism, the court concluded that the circumstances in this case were unreasonable. Further, the exception to the exclusionary rule in Davis v. United States for binding appellate precedent is inapplicable in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of warrantless, suspicionless searches of the defendant’s cell phone, and remanded for further proceedings. The panel noted that a probationer’s acceptance of a search term in a probation agreement does not by itself render lawful an otherwise unconstitutional search of a probationer’s person or property. The panel wrote that the issue is not solely whether the defendant accepted a cell phone search as a condition of his probation, but whether the search that he accepted was reasonable. Balancing the extent to which the searches intruded on the defendant’s substantial privacy interest in his cell phone and the data it contained against the government’s interests in combating recidivism and helping probationers integrate back into the community, the panel held that in the circumstances of this case the searches were unreasonable. The panel concluded that the exception to the exclusionary rule announced in Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011), does not apply to the circumstances of this case. UNITED STATES V. LARA 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.