Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James TAFELMEYER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-10
Citations: 584 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 13-30144
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James TAFELMEYER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NOONAN, HAWKINS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 766–768

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James TAFELMEYER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30144.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 25, 2014.
Filed Sept. 10, 2014.
Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Merchant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Mon tana, Billings, MT, Jessica L. Weltman, Esquire, Jessica L. Weltman, Attorney at Law, Missoula, MT for Defendant-Appellant.
James Tafelmeyer, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
Before NOONAN, HAWKINS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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 warrant-less searches and seizures. Tafelmeyer sought to modify the release condition following his sentencing hearing. The district court denied his motion. The court reasoned that Tafelmeyer's status as a supervised releasee affords him fewer privacy rights than the average citizen, and that his long history of accessing pornography — even when admonished against doing so while on pretrial release — warrants increased supervision 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 suspicion-less searches of parolees because the government's interest in reducing recidivism and its interest in promoting reintegration of those on conditional release "warrant privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment." 547 U.S. 843, 853, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). This court subsequently extended Samson to supervised releasees, holding that "[t]here is no sound reason for distinguishing 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). These goals are achieved in two ways: First, suspicionless searches will deter Tafelmeyer from possessing more child pornography, an activity that is easily concealed and difficult to discover without a search. This added deterrence is all the more necessary in light of Tafelmeyer's demonstrated inability to abstain from viewing pornography while on pretrial release. Second, enhanced supervision, including GPS tracking, facilitates compliance with other conditions of supervised release, such as the requirement that Tafelmeyer avoid schools and other places frequented by children. In short, the suspicionless search condition poses no greater deprivation to Tafelmeyer's already limited liberty interests than is necessary to further the goals of supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.