USA V. PAYNE, No. 22-50262 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Jeremy Travis Payne, a California parolee, was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine. The charges stemmed from evidence obtained from a house in Palm Desert, California, and from Payne's cell phone, which was unlocked by police using Payne's thumbprint during a traffic stop. Payne moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search of his phone and the house violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
The district court denied Payne's motion. It found that the search of Payne's phone was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given Payne's parole status and the conditions of his parole, which allowed for suspicionless searches of his property. The court also determined that the use of Payne's thumbprint to unlock his phone was not testimonial and therefore did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the search of Payne's phone did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It found that the search was authorized under a general search condition of Payne's parole, which allowed for the suspicionless search of any property under Payne's control. The court also held that the search of Payne's phone was not unreasonable under California law, which prohibits arbitrary, capricious, or harassing searches.
Regarding the Fifth Amendment claim, the court held that the use of Payne's thumbprint to unlock his phone was not testimonial because it required no cognitive exertion. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment did not apply.
Finally, the court held that there was sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant for the house in Palm Desert, California, without regard to observations made during a challenged protective sweep of the house.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Jeremy Travis Payne’s motion to suppress evidence.
Payne, a California parolee, was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine. After the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence of these crimes that California Highway Patrol officers had recovered from a house in Palm Desert, California, he entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute.
The panel held that the CHP officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in their search, during a traffic stop, of Payne’s cell phone, made possible by the officers’ forced use of his thumb to unlock the device. The panel held that, despite the language of a special search condition of Payne’s parole, requiring him to surrender any electronic device and provide a pass key or code, but not requiring him to provide a biometric identifier to unlock the device, the search was authorized under a general search condition, mandated by California law, allowing the suspicionless search of any property under Payne’s control. The panel concluded that any ambiguity created by the special condition, when factored into the totality of the circumstances, did not increase Payne’s expectation of privacy in his cell phone to render the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The panel further held that the search of the cell phone was not unreasonable on a theory that it violated California’s prohibition against arbitrary, capricious, or harassing searches. In addition, the search of Payne’s photos, videos, and maps on his cell phone did not run afoul of Riley v. California, which held that officers cannot search the contents of an individual’s cell phone incident to their arrest, because Riley does not apply to parole searches of a cell phone.
The panel held that the CHP officers did not violate Payne’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination when they compelled him to unlock his cell phone using his fingerprint. Payne established that the communication at issue was compelled and incriminating. The panel held, however, that the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device was not testimonial because it required no cognitive exertion, placing it in the same category as a blood draw or a fingerprint taken at booking, and merely provided the CHP with access to a source of potential information. Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment did not apply.
The panel held that there was sufficient probable cause to support issuance of a search warrant without regard to observations CHP officers made during a challenged protective sweep of the Palm Desert House.
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.