Opinion ID: 3166089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “stalking horse”

Text: For the first time on appeal, Harris argues that the government used the search provision in his terms of probation to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. He claims that the search of his residence had a law-enforcement, rather than probationary, purpose. Harris asserts that it is unconstitutional for a probation officer to act as a “stalking horse” by conducting a search based on the prior request of, and in concert with, law enforcement officers, in an effort to allow the law enforcement officers to evade the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements. 13 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 14 of 18
We review issues not raised in the district court for plain error. United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000). For this Court to correct plain error, (1) there must be an error (2) that is plain and (3) affects substantial rights. Id. “Where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015) (alteration omitted) (quotation marks omitted).
Harris has shown no plain error. This Court has never recognized the “stalking horse” theory, nor has the Supreme Court. Harris cites only extra-circuit precedent in support of his argument. Moreover, many circuits have overruled their “stalking horse” decisions after the Supreme Court’s decision in Knights, which suggested that it is impermissible to examine the purpose of a probationary search. See United States v. Williams, 417 F.3d 373, 377-78 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating that the Third Circuit was joining the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in holding that “stalking horse” claims are precluded by Knights); see also Knights, 534 U.S. at 122, 122 S. Ct. at 593 (clarifying that “there is no basis for examining official purpose” and that the Supreme Court has “been unwilling to entertain 14 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 15 of 18 Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers”). In any event, as there is no binding precedent controlling Harris’s claim, the district court did not plainly err by failing to suppress the guns based on a “threshold” “stalking horse issue.” See Hesser, 800 F.3d at 1325.