local to the device release condition here the district court upheld the search and mr savant they say soley because he was on probation and was subject to a search condition but a search condition by itself clearly does not give the police carte blanche to do any search anytime they want and it doesn't strip someone on probation subject a search condition people of the fourth amendment right to can i ask you you said no twice that he was on probation your client was on probation he sent the isn't mandatory supervision or doesn't have some other term that actually makes it more like parole rather than probation if i understand california not on parole even supervised release is not like parole throw in california is a continuation of custody for all is an extension of one's prison term and that's what i thought this mandatory supervision was it was the last year or so of the time he otherwise would have served in custody he's required to serve under these conditions of supervision now stuff would disagree on the circumstances of this case it's much more akin to probation well you know you mean you're  corrections someone is free to not say i don't want parole i want to serve the rest of my time in custody here this is this is like and this is to our where someone could not be subject to prison but nonetheless this is like probation because it was a minor offense it was a case where he could have gotten probation before there's no intent in california to take to change a condition of supervision following a short term of custody in county jail then what was it supposed to do and why did things change i spent seventeen years in the system this is nothing like the probationary sentences term in county jail and supervision to follow there's no practical difference in this matter kill for he did not change what makes kind of supervision was met to it didn't change transform not change and could not have changed the of the segment of folks who would not have been sentenced to up to our state prison under the old regime would have gotten county jail and probation and that's what this is this in this case that's what this is and that's the whole number of people subject to the supervision are just like the little probationers at california the realignment was to keep people out of prison but it was encompass people who otherwise would have been sentenced to well it maybe it doesn't matter because the situation you have here is a very explicit ability to search premises under his control and even if you don't rely solely and this the search term itself but you're looking at the context of search term which is the premises and that it's premises it's not a cell phone like in some of the cases lara why isn't it laura was the cell phone case why isn't it reasonable whether you call it special california probation special california release special whatever because even with a condition a search condition that extends to premises there has to be some rational has passed some level of reasonableness and the difference between this case and pretty much every other case is that one there is no suspicion the officer never said once the suspect that reasonable or not mr savant is of committing any crime to this does not look at all like something done in furtherance of probation it's not some random search by a probation officer it's not even a chance encounter on the street where the officer you know if he had said that this would be a closer case if he had said that i looked and i found something beyond the bare fact to probe that he was on probation and subject to search conditions i found that he  subject to a search condition if you want to save your remaining time certainly on good morning or honors may please the court mark tack on behalf united states i do believe that the mandatory supervision in this case is closer to the sampson line of cases and i think that there's some language and sampson that is actually helpful to the court's determination that is included sampson and also griffin discuss the continuum of government sanctions on an individual parole she's in prison on one side community service on the other and i don't want to put these cases in line as to where i think they fall starting from the greatest to the least is going to be prison next i would say jail next i would say would be defend it's mandatory supervision following period of jail time and i think and then i would go into night probation and of that i think is helpful for the court that is in sampson that kind of addresses how the supreme court was thinking of probation at that time when it was a deciding the one case that's on page eight fifty and it states that federal supervised released in contrast to probation is meted out in addition to not in lieu of incarceration and i think that's telling from the standpoint of the supreme court that they view probation as something in lieu of incarceration which isn't really this case and so i think this case falls closer to prison if i was closer to incarceration and sampson is really the case that despite is it true that the only reason the officers pursued this case was because of the search condition they found i would agree that this was a random search of the individual that there was no articulable suspicion reason more unreasonable it was a completely random search and so so it rises and falls on whether their condition per se is enforceable without more correct yes or on this case different from lara phone data unlike other types of property and also that the condition was not clear and unequivocal so the privacy interest was not waiver diminished and so i think those are the two main holdings of laura that are not apply couple in this case i think we're not dealing with a cell phone and we're not dealing with an ambiguous well i guess what bothers me about this case is that the hotel room was not his it was his companion to tell him it was rented in her name she paid for it yes he had an access key to the room but oftentimes guests of hotel you know people take out rooms they give a lecture key to their gas so i guess i'm a little bit hesitant to conclude that this even meet the  terms of the search condition that a premises were under his control and i am thinking about the case granbury that we decided a few years ago the term can search condition there said property under your control and we held there that that wasn't clear enough to allow them to search the for a lease girlfriend's apartment because of the substantial privacy interest she had and i just it seems to me that's very similar to this situation so maybe you could respond to that  sure first off he didn't have a privacy interest in the apartment and he would have standing to races this year good because he was an overnight guest but that doesn't mean the premises were under his control for purposes of the search condition that's exactly what we held in granbury granb for all we knew the person was an overnight guest of his girlfriend at the apartment and the government you guys tried to argue that well it wasn't his residence because it was the same thing residence or property under control but it was you know he had a key to the girlfriend's apartment and we said now that that's that wasn't good enough and so why is that different from this case i think it's different because it's a hotel room and i think multiple times when more than one person can have control over health tell room and just because it was rented in her name doesn't mean that he also didn't happen to roll i think the fact it had a key in its possession that does show some ownership of control that he was allowed to be there without her being present at that particular room he also said he was staying there also so i think those things go to show that he did have some least some control over that room if he's able to go in and leave without anyone else being there there are spaces in the hotel room like rooms that are more private than others that was just one hotel room i think that's also true of the apartment in granbury and i guess what i'm trying to focus you on in terms of the reasonable those inquiries that one of the factors we said was important there is that unlike in a lot of these searches where the defendant's own property like a cellphone even there's a third party who's totally innocent presumably who whose privacy interests are going to be completely trampled upon if this search goes forward and it seems to me sure people share hotel rooms all the time but this was her room she had you know fully privacy interests in that room and i guess why though why would we take into account the invasion of her privacy interests when deciding whether in the totality of the circumstances this particular search was reasonable i think a hotel room is different  and i think the reason why is that generally one person rents a hotel room it's not shared lease like an apartment maybe or more than one person is renting it so it is entirely possible that the two of them got together and decided ok we're bringing it  together but one person's name ends up being on the hotel room and i think the small location of the hotel room the stuff the reason that his items were strewn all over the hotel room which is what the author said i think that shows a dominion and control over the hotel room in addition to his girlfriend or the female that was present for it so i don't think the fact mere fact that she rented it is just going to be to show that she's dealing with it has dominion over that and i think a hotel room is a little different than an apartment in that respect so if this had been the girlfriend's apartment and we had the exact same facts exact same search condition here you would say no go i don't i have to look at the factual bit more your honor and i was there to know it's the girlfriend's apartment it's not a hotel room he has a key just like here and presumably his stuff is strewn about the apartment because he's been staying there for a couple of days you would say that those are premises under his control and the officers can just go in and tear the place up i think the key is it's pretty indicative of whether somebody has control over a particular place or not and i do think that there is a distinction between a hotel room and an apartment but i think the key is it in my opinion is what allows for dominion and control where that person would be able to enter and leave without anyone else being without the person that's on the lease or the name of the hotel room being present so on this issue does it rise or fall on what we think progress is under my control means i think so your honor i think that's what that's where it is and i think a hotel room where he's got the key is a premises or residence that he has control over because he's not only just because a number of his his items were present in the hotel room so you've got purposes is different from residence and i think they both overlap your honor and i think both are covered under hotel with the family cover get you out of the property problem in terms of any ambiguity please correct yes  but going back to judge watts once question and our previous case if i understood your answer you would indicate that if it was the girlfriend's apartment he would still have control over the premises if his stuff was the and strewn about and he had been there i and he had a key i would think that he would have control over common areas of that apartment and that's what i would argue there certainly may be rooms in an apartment that are off limits to particular persons and in this case the police officers specifically only looked at common areas in the in the apartment in the hotel room and so that's the area where i think the defendant would have control over that there were no on common areas i would agree with that i just know the police officers in this case said that they found the items in common areas of the hotel room was their terminology common areas yes or no there was they didn't dig around her suitcase or something like that specifically they stated that they left anything that looked like a female's property alone and they didn't go and rummage through that property i see that my time is almost off i want to dress one other item that was raised by the defendant in his brief with respect to some sort of articulable suspicion that should the argument that some sort of  articulable suspicion should be i guess read into this condition and i think that's not supported by the case law i think it's also not supported by the way the defendant addressed and believe that this suspicion this search condition to include his view of that condition was that he had no expectation of privacy in that office or to conduct a random search of him i think that statement is pretty dispositive with respect to what his understanding that search mission in addition the district court imposed on how does that figure as a legal matter what if he misunderstood it and he said no you have to have some suspicion let that man be controlling i don't think so but it doesn't really matter i think it does matter the fact that he said i  understand yes i agree to the search because and he followed up saying that i'm subject i'm on probation subject to search and seizure so i think this is indicative he's been on the search conditions for at least seven years at the time he understood that search condition meant is the good faith exception and all involved in this case i would agree it is your honor and i see my time is almost up i think in this particular case the officers acted in accordance with appellate precedent in their jurisdiction the medina case and the brown case and that that allowed random searches based on these same types of search conditions and so the police officer shortly did not act intentionally they didn't act with reckless disregard they believed at that time that they were off price to do that random based on that search conditional it wouldn't serve the purposes of the exclusionary rule to apply in this case not your argument i would agree on this thank you saying that with respect to probation i wish you could not rely on those california faces but once they can sack same ones that the government just cited because they were not clear enough there was not a bright line there still has to be checked into the defendant's situation that we don't know and that's part of the government's burden to justify the search and show that it was reasonable if there was something that would be offered the officer checked off and  said i mean we know they also checked enough to find that he was on probation and subject to a search condition that's all we know and so that's that's not enough to engage the good faith exception at your argument that's correct on the the point being that if there's no it can't be that the only thing that's off limits to a search is a cell phone and on your own all circumstances and all facts all searches a probation or subject a search condition is that the cell funk case came after didn't it him after after the surge in third place in this case yes yes yes yes to do so when you're putting yourself in the shoes of the officers at the time but case what case law are they violating well especially after the cell phone case that no explicit oh excuse  the cell phone cases is posted a certain case itself there's no relied on there was the exact same precedence there was no riley before the cell phone case so it's not like i mean there is no probation you have carte blanche to search him what's what's your response to the argument that notwithstanding the fact that the girlfriend whoever she was granted this hotel room nonetheless they were premises under his control that are also i also believe that this is so far removed from any legitimate surge in terms of time place reason that it's like constitution so probably a straw man any conduct at all by police officers what this what this allows is and i'm not saying it happens here but you know maybe i'll stick to terrorists just didn't like the way or you know maybe he thought oh that it allows the kind of racial profiling that is a pornstar constitution and that's we have a fair argument in mind and we've given you about a few extra minutes here that we didn't give your co counsel so i appreciate the argument from both counts so the case of united states versus irvine to submitted and you