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 ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. TONY M ILLER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10236

D.C . No. 4:15-c r-00197-JD-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 13, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R OB R ENO, ** Distric t Judge
. Following a

stipula t e d-fa c ts be n c h

tria l, Tony

M ille r wa s c onvic t e d of be ing
a fe l on in posse ssion of a

fire arm in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). M ille r
a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre s s e vide nc e . W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED AUG 03 2017 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.

* * The Honora

ble Edua rdo C . R obre n o, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva nia , sitting by

de s igna tion.First, the offic e rs’ se arc h of the Nissa n in whic h M ille r wa s sitting whe n the offic e rs e nc ounte re d him

wa s re a sona

ble , be c a use the gove rnm e nta l inte re sts in
se arc hing M ille r’ s se at in thec a r outwe ighe d his e xpe c t ation of priva c y . Samson v
. C alifornia , 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006). On one ha nd, the gove rnm e nt ha d signific ant inte re sts in c onduc ting these arc h: c ounte ring re c idivism am ong individuals who pre viously have be e n c onvic te d of c rim e s, both to prote c t the public from

a dditiona l c rim e s c om

m itte d by re c i divists, a

nd to re i nte grate into
soc i e ty individuals who ha ve be e n c onvic te d of c rim e s. Se e C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 3450(b); se e also C a l. Pe na l C ode § 17.5, 17.7. On the othe r ha

nd, M ille r ha d

a low e xpe c tation of priva c y . As a pe rson on Postre le a se C om

m unity Supe rvision (“ PR C S” ), M ille r wa s subje c t to a m andatory
se arc h c ondition tha

t pe rm itte d the offic e rs to pe rform a wa rrantle ss se arc h of his posse s sions. Se e C a l. Pe na l C ode § 3453(f) (“ The pe rson, a nd his or he r re side nc e
and posse ssions, shall be subje c t to se arc h at a ny tim e of the da

y or night, with or without a wa rran t, by an a g e nt of the supe rvising c ounty a ge nc y or by

a pe a c e offic e r.” ). M ore ove r, C a lifornia re g ulation re q

uire s tha t pe rsons subje c t to PR C S be a d vise d, “ You, y our re side nc e , a n d a ny othe r prope rty

unde r y our c ontrol m ay be se arc he d

without a wa rrant da y or night by

an a ge nt of the supe rvising c ounty , any pe a c e offic e r, or la

w e nforc e m e nt offic e r.” C a l. C ode R e gs. tit. 15, §

23075.2(b)(5)(A) (inc orporating C DC R Form 1515-C S (R e v. 08/12) by re fe re nc e ). Upon be ing re le a se d unde r PR C S, inm ate s are re quire d to sign C D C R Form 1515-C S, whic h a dvise s the m of this se a

rc h c ondition. Although a C DC R Form 1515-C S signe d by

M ille r is not in the

re c ord, M ille r doe s not c la im he did not sign the form
. A wa rrantle ss se a

rc h c o n dition a lone , e ve n in the a b se nc e of re a s ona

ble suspic ion of c rim ina l wrongdoing, is e nough to justify a

wa rrantle ss se arc h of a pa role e . Se e Samson , 547 U.S. a t 850. C a lifornia

a ppe lla t e c ourts ha

ve like ne d PR C S to pa

role
. Se e Pe o

p lev . Douglas , 240 C a l . App. 4th 855, 864 (2015), a s modifie d on de nial of re h’g (Oc t. 19, 2015); Pe oplev . J one s , 231 C a l. App. 4th 1257, 1266 (2014). On the c ontinuum

of sta te -im pose d punishm e nts, “

pa role e s have fe we r e xpe c t a tions of priva c y tha n proba t ione rs, be c a

use pa role is m ore akin to im prisonm e nt tha

n proba tion is to im

prisonm e n t.” Samson , 547 U.S. a t 850. The re fore , M ille r’ s e xpe c tation of priva c y wa s low, a

kin to a pa role e ’ s e xpe c tation of priva c y . The offic e rs kne w tha

t M ille r wa s subje c t to a

se a rc h c ondition. B o th offic e rs file d de c la

ra t ions sta

t ing tha t the y kne w tha t M ille r wa s on PR C S. B e c a use he wa s on PR C S, M ille r wa s subje c t to a m andatory

se arc h c ondition. Se e C a l. Pe na l C ode § 3453(f).
3M ore ove r, M ille r’ s se arc h c ondition a uthoriz e d se arc h of prope rty unde r his
c ontrol. Se e C a l . C ode R e gs. tit. 15, § 3075.2(b)(5)(A) (“ You, y our re side nc e , a

nd
any othe r prope r ty

unde r y our c ontrol

m a y be se a rc he d without a

wa rran t da y or night by an a ge nt of the supe rvising c ounty , a ny pe a c e offic e r, or la

w e nforc e m e nt offic e r.” (inc orporat ing C DC R Form 1515-C S (R e v. 08/12) by re fe re nc e ) (e m pha sis a dde d )). Although M ille r did not own the Nissa n, it wa s unde r his
c ontrol a t the tim e of the se a

rc h. Se c ond, the offic e rs ha d the a uthority to de ta in M ille r in orde r to a c c om plish the s e arc h of his pe rson a

nd the prope rty unde r his c ontrol. M ue hle r v . Me na , 544 U.S. 93, 98 (2005). The

offic e rs’ ha

ndc uffing of M ille r and his pla c e m e nt in the ba c k of the pat

rol c ar we re re a s ona

ble m e a s ure s tha

t did not c onve rt his de t e ntion into a n a rre st. Se e Halv orse n v . Baird , 146 F.3d 680, 685 (9th C i r. 1998). The
c onc e rn for offic e r and c ivilia n sa fe t y a s we ll a s the possibility

tha t M ille r pose d a flight risk justifie d the s e m e a sure s. Se e Baile y v . Unite d State

s , 568 U.S. 186, 194-99 (2013); Mic higan v . Summe rs , 452 U.S. 692, 704-05 (1981). AFFIRM E D.

4