United States v. Miguel Baron
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel BARON, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Harry Pregerson (author), Smith, Jay S. Bybee
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50401 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02917-AJB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL BARON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 2, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Baron appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless probation search. We affirm. On balance, the search of Baron’s truck was reasonable.1 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 Baron’s residence was also searched. However, because no evidence from that search was used against Baron, it is not relevant to our analysis. The probation search of Baron’s truck did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In determining whether the search was reasonable, “we balance, ‘on the one hand, the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which [the search] is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’” United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605, 610 (9th Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119 (2001)).
Baron’s privacy interest was minimal. First, as a probationer, Baron’s privacy interest was “significantly diminished.” See Knights, 534 U.S. at 119-20.
Second, Baron’s vehicle, where the gun was found, was subject to “a reduced expectation of privacy.” See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 (1985).
Third, Baron’s probation terms “unambiguously informed” him that his vehicle was subject to search. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 119.
The government’s interest, on the other hand, was significant. “Probationary searches advance at least two related government interests—combating recidivism and helping probationers integrate back into the community.” Lara, 815 F.3d at 612. “These are important interests whose strength in a particular case varies depending on the degree to which the government has a specific reason to suspect that a particular probationer is reoffending or otherwise jeopardizing his 2 reintegration into the community.” Id. Here, the government had a “specific reason” to make the search, because Baron’s name had come up several times prior to the search in connection with either shootings or thefts. See id.
AFFIRMED.