Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel Daron KING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-01
Citations: 687 F.3d 1189
Docket Number: No. 11-10182
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel Daron KING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 687
Pages: 1189–1190

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcel Daron KING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10182.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2012.
Filed Aug. 1, 2012.
Barry J. Portman, Federal Public Defender, Daniel P. Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, for the appellant.
Melinda Haag, United States Attorney, Barbara J. Yalliere, Chief, Appellate Division, Assistant United States Attorney, Suzanne B. Miles, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for the appellee.
Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to 35-3 advisory committee's note.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
We overrule Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2005), the precedent on which it relies, Moreno v. Baca, 400 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2005), and United, States v. Harper, 928 F.2d 894 (9th Cir.1991), and later cases that rely on it, including United States v. Baker, 658 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2011), Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2009), and United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.2007), to the extent they hold that "there is no constitutional difference between probation and parole for purposes of the fourth amendment." Motley, 432 F.3d at 1083 n. 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). These cases conflict with the Supreme Court's holding that "parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers." Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006).
United States v. King, 672 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.2012), is vacated, and the case is referred to the original panel for disposition consistent with this opinion.