Opinion ID: 3030698
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Degree of the Intrusion

Text: Having clarified that parolees are entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment, we must decide the extent to which the Fourth Amendment protected Moreno from the intrusion in this case. In doing so, we weigh the intrusiveness of the search and seizure taking into account the context in which they occurred, because the “specific content and incidents” of Moreno’s right to privacy depend on “the context in which it is asserted.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968). 4 Similarly, in United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 863 (2005), in which we assumed without deciding that a search of a parolee violated the Fourth Amendment, id. at 1054, the parole document provided for “search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant, and with or without cause,” id. at 1051 (emphasis added). 5 For that reason, we find it unnecessary to address Appellants’ alternative theory that Moreno gave advance consent to the search. MORENO v. BACA 2673 [7] Whatever the extent of Moreno’s Fourth Amendment rights, they clearly included the right to walk along a public sidewalk unmolested by law enforcement. Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right of locomotion, to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one’s business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, disturbing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under the law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. The constitution and the laws are framed for the public good, and the protection of all citizens from the highest to the lowest; and no one may be restrained of his liberty, unless he has transgressed some law. Lawson v. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362, 1368 n.13 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting People v. De Fillippo, 262 N.W.2d 921, 924 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977) (quoting Pinkerton v. Verberg, 44 N.W. 579, 582-83 (Mich. 1889)), rev’d on other grounds, 443 U.S. 31 (1979); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 550 (1980) (“There is no question . . . that the respondent [had a] constitutional right of personal security as she walked through the Detroit Airport . . . .” ); Terry, 392 U.S. at 9 (“Unquestionably petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland.”) (citations omitted). In Terry, the State argued that a pat-down of a suspect’s body for weapons was a de minimis intrusion for the purpose of Fourth Amendment analysis. Id. at 16. Although the Court agreed that a limited stop-and-frisk was less intrusive than a full-blown arrest and search, it “emphatically rejected” the 2674 MORENO v. BACA State’s contention that the intrusion was constitutionally insignificant: It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a “search.” Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a “petty indignity.” It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. Id. at 16-17 (emphasis added). The Court went on to describe the encounter as an “annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.” Id. at 25; cf. Kincade, 379 F.3d at 836 (plurality opinion) (stating that the intrusion occasioned by a compulsory blood test was “ ‘not significant’ ” because it involves “ ‘virtually no risk, trauma, or pain’ ”) (quoting Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 625 (1989)). [8] The search to which Moreno was subjected must also have been annoying, frightening, and humiliating. He was ordered to assume a vulnerable position for an investigatory pat-down, his personal effects were emptied onto the hood of a marked patrol car in full view of the neighborhood, and he was locked into the back seat of the patrol car. Whereas Terry involved the comparatively minor intrusion of an investigatory detention and a pat-down for weapons, there is little doubt that Moreno and his companion were subject to a fullblown arrest and search. Moreno could not reasonably have concluded that he was free to go about his business when he MORENO v. BACA 2675 was locked inside the patrol car. See Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437 (holding that in determining whether one has been seized, “the crucial test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would ‘have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business’ ”) (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 (1988)). And the fact that Moreno was locked in the car after he was patted down and questioned makes it impossible to argue that the detention was anything but a full custodial arrest. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212 (1979); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 499 (1983) (“In the name of investigating a person who is no more than suspected of criminal activity, the police may not carry out a full search of the person or of his automobile or other effects. Nor may the police seek to verify their suspicions by means that approach the conditions of arrest.”). Moreno certainly had a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of his pockets, especially in light of the fact that a Terry patdown had previously been conducted and no weapons or contraband were found. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 378 (1993); United States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001). We are confident that no court would countenance the intrusion to which Moreno was subjected, were it imposed on an ordinary person unfettered by parole conditions, unless it was supported by probable cause. 3. California’s Interest in Supervising its Parolees “In most cases, the State is willing to extend parole only because it is able to condition it upon compliance with certain requirements. The State thus has an overwhelming interest in ensuring that a parolee complies with those requirements and is returned to prison if he fails to do so.” Scott, 524 U.S. at 365. California’s interest in supervising parolees, like its interest in supervising probationers, is twofold. First, it has an interest 2676 MORENO v. BACA in ensuring that its offenders successfully complete their terms and become integrated back into the community. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 120; Griffin, 483 U.S. at 875 (noting that probation conditions are “meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation”). Second, it has an interest in protecting the public from the harm that recidivist parolees can cause.6 See Latta, 521 F.2d at 249 (plurality opinion) (describing the duty of parole officers to “prevent[ ] possible further antisocial or criminal conduct by the parolee”). The traditional assumption has been that close supervision promotes the purposes of parole by reducing an offender’s opportunity to commit another crime or otherwise violate the terms of his or her release. See Griffin, 483 U.S. at 875 (holding that “more intensive supervision can reduce recidivism”) (citing Petersilia, Probation and Felony Offenders, 49 Fed. Probation 9 (June 1985)). [9] But our task is not simply to weigh the gravity of California’s interests in rehabilitating its parolees and protecting its citizens; we must also assess the degree to which suspicionless searches actually advance those interests. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 118-19. It is not clear that suspicionless searches advance either the deterrent or rehabilitative purpose of parole. More recent studies suggest that close supervision of offenders has relatively little impact on recidivism rates. Joan Petersilia, A Decade of Experimenting with Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned? 62 Federal Probation 3, 6 (Dec. 1998) (finding that close supervision “did not decrease subsequent arrests or overall justice system costs,” and rejecting the premise that “increased surveillance acts as a constraint on the offender and that the likelihood of detec- 6 California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, with 70 percent of its paroled felons re-offending within the first 18 months of their release. Crawford, 372 F.3d at 1069 (Trott, J., concurring) (citing Joan Petersilia, Challenges of Prisoner Reentry and Parole in California, 12 CPRC (June 2000)). A full 68 percent of adult parolees are returned to prison: 55 percent for a parole violation and 13 percent for the commission of a new felony offense. Id. MORENO v. BACA 2677 tion acts as a deterrent to crime”). After all, parole is intended to provide a transition between prison, which allows for very little privacy, and freedom, inherent in which is a great deal of privacy. In sum, the State has not shown that suspicionless searches, which mimic the conditions of prison, significantly advances the purposes of parole beyond searches based on a reasonableness requirement. 4 The Reasonable Suspicion Standard [10] Apart from cases presenting a “special need, beyond ordinary law enforcement,” courts have generally required some level of individualized suspicion in order to meet the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” test.7 The Supreme Court emphasized the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” when it affirmed the probation searches in both Griffin, 483 U.S. at 871, and Knights, 534 U.S. at 121. We cited the “reasonable suspicion” standard when evaluating the constitutionality of a parole search in United States v. Dally, 606 F.2d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that a parole search was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment because the parole officer had a “reasonable belief” that the parolee had violated his parole by changing addresses), and after concluding that the Fourth Amendment rights of parolees and probationers were indistinguishable, we applied the “reasonable suspicion” standard when evaluating the search of a probationer in Davis, 932 F.2d at 758 (“The permissible bounds of a probation search are governed by a reasonable suspicion standard.”). See also United States v. Stokes, 292 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 7 Even “special needs” cases have required individualized suspicion in order to conduct targeted searches of individuals. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 347; Griffin, 483 U.S. at 879-880. The only truly suspicionless searches that have been permitted under the “special needs” doctrine involve cases in which blanket searches or seizures of broad groups of individuals were required. See, e.g., Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 889 (2004) (checkpoint established to question all motorists regarding a crime in the area); Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 665 (1995) (suspicionless drug testing of student athletes). 2678 MORENO v. BACA 2002) (holding that “the probation officer was entitled to carry out a search of Stokes’ vehicle with no more than reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity”). Even were we free to do so, we see no reason to abandon that standard here. Taking into account the reduced privacy rights enjoyed by parolees and the State’s interest in rehabilitating parolees and deterring crime, we hold that the Constitution requires that a law enforcement officer must, at minimum, have a reasonable suspicion that a parolee has engaged in criminal wrongdoing or violated his parole prior to arresting him or conducting a search of his person.8 [11] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moreno, we conclude that Appellants lacked reasonable suspicion to detain and search him. Neither Banks nor Garcia had received any information that would cause them to suspect Moreno of any illegal activity. Banks asserts that Moreno was in a high crime area and looked nervous on seeing the police car. But Moreno denies reaching into his pocket, or bending to his side and placing anything on the ground. These facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to Moreno, do not give rise to reasonable suspicion. See United States v. ChavezValenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 726 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that “nervousness alone” does not give rise to reasonable suspicion), amended by 279 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Garcia-Camacho, 53 F.3d 244, 247 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a “surprised” and “terrified” look on the defendant’s face when pulled over by law enforcement does not give rise to reasonable suspicion); United States v. Rodriguez, 976 F.2d 592, 595-96 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the defendant’s repeated glances at law enforcement officers through a 8