NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAMES TAFELMEYER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-30144 D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00025-RFC-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 25, 2014 Seattle, Washington Before: NOONAN, HAWKINS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. James Tafelmeyer, a convicted felon currently serving a 97-month federal prison sentence for receiving child pornography, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify his conditions of supervised release. Specifically, Tafelmeyer contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a 

# FILED
SEP 10 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.condition that requires him to submit to suspicionless searches, including GPS tracking, because such a condition violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. Ta felmeyer sought to modify the release condition following his sentencing hearing. The district court denied his motion. . The court reasoned that Tafelmeyer’s stat us as a supervised releasee affords him fewer privacy rights than the average citi zen, and that his long history of accessing pornography—even when admonished against doing so while on pretrial release—warrants increased supervisi on once he is released from prison. We review the district court’s imposition of the release condition for abuse of discretion, see United States v. King , 608 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2010), and the underlying Fourth Amendment claim de novo, see United States v. Cotterman , 709 F.3d 952, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). 1. The district court properly found that requiring Tafelmeyer to submit to suspicionless searches while on supervised release presents no Fourth Amendment violation. The Supreme Court made clear in Samson v. California that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit suspicionle ss searches of parolees because the government’s interest in reducing recidi vism and its interest in promoting reintegration of those on conditional release “warrant privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under th e Fourth Amendment.” 547 U.S. 843, 853
2(2006). This court subsequently extended Samson to supervised releasees, holding that “[t]here is no sound reason for disti nguishing parole from supervised release with respect to [a suspicionless search] condition.” United States v. Betts , 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2007). 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the condition of release because the condition reasonably furthers the goals of “deterrence, protection of the public, [and] rehabilitation of the offender.” United States v. Weber , 451 F.3d 552, 558 (9th Cir. 2006) (int ernal quotation marks and citation omitted). These goals are achieved in two wa ys: First, suspicionless searches will deter Tafelmeyer from possessing more childpornography, an activity that is easily concealed and difficult to discover without a search. This added deterrence is all the more necessary in light of Tafelmeye r’s demonstrated inability to abstain from viewing pornography while on pretrial release. Second, enhanced supervision, including GPS tracking, facilitates complian ce with other conditions of supervised release, such as the requirement thatTafelmeyer avoid schools and other places frequented by children. In short, the suspicionless search condition poses no greater deprivation to Tafelmeyer’s al ready limited liberty interests than is necessary to further the goals of supervised release. AFFIRMED. 3