N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B ENJAM IN FOR

N ES, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10442

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00750-C KJ-JR -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na C indy K. Jorge nson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , REINHAR DT, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt B e nja m in Forne s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se , whic h re quire s him to submit to suspic ionle ss se arc he s of his pe rson, prope rty , house , re side nc e , ve hic le , a nd pa pe rs. W e re vie wc onditions of supe rvise d re le a se for a

buse of disc re tion. 

# FIL ED DEC 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Unite d

State s v . Bare , 806 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th C i r. 2015). As thepa rtie s are fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e a ffirm
. Se c tion 3583(d)(2) re quire s tha t a supe rvise d re le a s e c ondition “ involve [] no gre ate r de priva

tion of liberty

tha n is re a sona

bly ne c e ssa ry for the purpose s se t forth in se c tion 3553(a

)(2)(B ), (a )(2)(C ), and (a )(2)(D).” 18 U.S.C
. § 3583(d)(2). Forne s c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation tha t a suspic ionle ss se arc h c ondition wa s re a sona bly ne c e s sa ry fa ile d to a de quate ly
c onside r his individua

liz e d c irc um sta

nc e s. Howe ve r, the re c ord shows tha t the distric t c o urt suffic ie ntly

c onside re d Forne s’ s individual c irc um sta nc e s in im

posing the s uspic ionle s s se arc h

c o ndition. The

distric t c ourt sta

te d tha t the c ondition wa s re a s ona ble “ ba se d on theunde rly ing na ture of this c onvic tion, whic h is posse ssion with intent to distribute

a la rge qua ntity of he roin” and “ give n the substa nc e a buse issue s.” The c ourt a c knowle dge d tha t the suspic ionle ss se arc h c ondition wa s broa d, but justifie d the la c k of a re a sona ble suspic ion re quire m e nt by noting tha

t “ I think tha t this se arc h c ondition will e nha nc e the probat ion offic e r’ s a bility to
a de quate ly

supe rvise y o u .” Furthe rm ore , we have he ld tha t suspic ionle ss se arc h

re quire m e nts in
c onditions of supe

rvise d re le a se are not a

n a buse of disc re tion. In Unite d State s v . Be tts , we he ld tha

t a distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it im p ose d a
2suspic ionle ss se arc h c ondition on a de fe n da nt c onvic te d of c onspira c y to c o m m it fraud in thec re dit re porting se c tor. 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th C i r. 2007). He re , a s in Be tts , the distric t c ourt justifie d the re a sona ble ne ss of a

suspic ionle ss se arc h
c ondition ba se d

on Forne s’ s individual iz e d c irc um s ta nc e s. In this c a se , the s e c irc um s ta nc e s inc lude d the nature of his c rim e , his risk of substa nc e a buse , a nd the probat ion offic e r’ s ne e d to a de quate ly supe rvise him . Ac c o rdingly , the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion be c a

use it did not fai l to c o nside r whe the r the suspic ionle ss se arc h c ondition wa s re a sona bly ne c e s sa ry , a s re quire d by

se c tion 3583(d)(2). Forne s a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt viola

te d se c tion 3583(d)(3) by fa iling to c onside r that the Se nte nc ing C o m m ission’ s polic y

sta te m e nts re c om

m e nd im posing a suspic i onle ss se arc h c ondition only on se xoffe nde rs, a

n d do not
e xplic itly re c om m e nd suc h a

c o ndition for drug traffic k e rs. Se c tion 3583(d)(3) provide s tha

t a supe rvise d re le a se c ondition m ust be “ c onsiste nt with a

ny pe rtine nt polic y sta te m e nts issue d by

the Se nte nc i ng C om

m ission pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C
. 994(a ).” 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d)(3). Howe v e r, Forne s m isc ha

ra c te riz e s the Se nte nc ing C om m ission’ s polic y sta te m e nt a s im

ply ing tha

t suspic ionle ss se arc h c o nditions should only be im pose d
on se x offe nde rs. While the Se nte nc ing Guide line s re c om m e nd suspic ionle ss 3se arc h c onditions for sex offe nde rs, s e eU.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(7)(C ), the y a lso sta te that the sa m e suspic ionle ss se arc h c ondition “ m a y othe rwise be a

ppropria te in pa rtic u la r c a se s.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d). There fore , the re is no Se nte nc ing C om m ission policy

lim iting suspic ionle s s se arc he s to se x offe nde rs, a n d Forne s fa ils to c ite any

a uthority to the c ontra

ry . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing thesuspic ionle ss se arc h c ondition without e xpre s sly
c onside ring the Se nte nc ing C om m ission’ s polic y

sta te m e nts. To the e xte nt Forne s sugge s ts tha

t re a sona b l e suspic ion is re quire d e ve n for se xoffe nde rs, he is
m ista ke n. S e e U.S.S.G. 5D1.3(d)(7)(c ) (a l lowing for se arc he s “ upon re a sona ble suspic ion . . . , or

by any probat ion offic e r in the la wful disc h a

rge of the offic e r’ s supe rvision func tions” ) (e m pha sis a dde d). AFFIRM E D
.

4Unite d

State s v . Forne s , No. 15-10442 Re inhar dt, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing: I c onc ur in them e m orandum disposition, but I do so noting two c onc e rns. First, the s e arc h c ondition in this c a se did not e xplic itly sta te tha t Forne s c ould be
se arc he d without a

wa rrant or re a sona

ble suspic ion. This issue , howe ve r, wa s not
ra ise d on a

ppe a l a nd thus is not be fore us. Se c ond, I a m c o nc e rne d by

the
re pre se ntation m a de during ora l a rgum e nt tha

t suspic ionle ss se arc he s are , in som e distric ts, be c o m ing a c o m m on c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se . Suc h a

c o ndition is
a se rious infringem e nt upon a de fe nda nt’ s libe rty

and priva c y , a

nd should be im pose d only

whe n, a s he re , it is spe c ia lly justifie d by the fa c ts of thec a se at ha nd. 

# FIL ED DEC 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS