United States v. Ped, No. 18-50179 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
After defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, as well as conditions of his supervised release. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction, holding that the search of defendant's home was lawful.
However, the panel held that three conditions of supervised release -- requiring defendant to 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 -- were unconstitutionally vague under United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018). The panel vacated the supervised release conditions and remanded with instructions to impose whatever alternative conditions the district court deemed appropriate. The panel explained that rewriting a provision of a sentence would exceed its authority under 18 U.S.C. 3742(f)(1), and thus it did not need to consider how section 3742(f)(1) affected its authority to modify a sentence without remanding.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed Anthony Lee Ped’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, vacated three conditions of supervised release, and remanded for modification of the conditions. The panel held that the district court did not err in denying Ped’s motion to suppress evidence that he possessed a firearm, which was found in a search of his home. The panel held that officers had probable cause to believe that Ped’s brother, Nick Wilson, lived at Ped’s house, most significantly because Wilson’s probation officer had provided to the police a list stating that Wilson had reported living at that address. The panel explained that the officers reasonably relied on the list, notwithstanding that it was three months old, where there was nothing about Wilson’s reported address suggesting that it was likely to be transitory and there was substantial information corroborating the listed address. The panel wrote that Ped’s and his mother’s statements when the officers arrived at the house that Wilson no longer lived there did not constitute convincing evidence that undermined the information the officer previously had received. The panel rejected Ped’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the search violated California’s prohibition against arbitrary, capricious, or harassing searches. UNITED STATES V. PED 3 The panel vacated as unconstitutionally vague under United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018), three conditions of supervised release, and remanded to the district court with instructions to impose whatever alternative conditions it deems appropriate. Because rewriting a provision of a sentence – as would be required here to achieve the purposes of the original conditions in a way that is not unconstitutionally vague – would exceed this court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1), the panel did not need to consider how § 3742(f)(1) affected this court’s authority to modify a sentence without remanding.
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.