United States v. Walker, 19-cr-00013-SI-1. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200113896
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2020
Summary: ORDER RE: January 14, 2020 HEARING SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . The government contends that defendant Walker lacks standing to contest the initial seizure and the search of the Ford Fusion because at the time of the stop and search, he was completing the custodial portion of his sentence in CR 10-772 at a halfway house, and thus Walker is akin to an inmate who does not have any Fourth Amendment protections. See Gov't Opp'n at 5:24-26. The parties shall be prepared to address this ar
Summary: ORDER RE: January 14, 2020 HEARING SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . The government contends that defendant Walker lacks standing to contest the initial seizure and the search of the Ford Fusion because at the time of the stop and search, he was completing the custodial portion of his sentence in CR 10-772 at a halfway house, and thus Walker is akin to an inmate who does not have any Fourth Amendment protections. See Gov't Opp'n at 5:24-26. The parties shall be prepared to address this arg..
More
ORDER RE: January 14, 2020 HEARING
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
The government contends that defendant Walker lacks standing to contest the initial seizure and the search of the Ford Fusion because at the time of the stop and search, he was completing the custodial portion of his sentence in CR 10-772 at a halfway house, and thus Walker is akin to an inmate who does not have any Fourth Amendment protections. See Gov't Opp'n at 5:24-26.
The parties shall be prepared to address this argument at the hearing, including whether the fact that the officers did not know about Walker's status at the time of the stop and search is relevant to the standing analysis. Cf. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 865 n.5 (2006) (finding that suspicionless search of parolee, conducted under the authority of a California statute requiring that every prisoner eligible for release on state parole "shall agree in writing to be subject to 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," did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but stating that an officer would not act reasonably in conducting a suspicionless search absent knowledge that the person stopped for the search is a parolee).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
