United States v. King

• Decision Date: 01 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–10182.,11–10182.
• Citation: 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10593,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8658,687 F.3d 1189
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Marcel Daron KING, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

687 F.3d 1189

12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8658

2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,593

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Marcel Daron KING, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 11–10182.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 2012.^*

Filed Aug. 1, 2012.

Barry J. Portman, Federal Public Defender, Daniel P. Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, for the appellant.

Melinda Haag, United States Attorney, Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Division, Assistant United States Attorney, Suzanne B. Miles, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for the appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:10–cr–00455–WHA–1.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We overrule Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2005), the precedent on which it relies, Moreno v. Baca, 400 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2005), and United States v. Harper, 928 F.2d 894 (9th Cir.1991), and later cases that rely on it, including United States v. Baker, 658 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2011), Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2009), and United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.2007), to the extent they hold that “there is no constitutional difference between probation and parole for purposes of the fourth amendment.” Motley, 432 F.3d at 1083 n. 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). These cases conflict with the Supreme Court's holding that “parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006).

United States v. King, 672 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.2012), is vacated, and the case is referred to the original panel for disposition consistent with this opinion.

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R.App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35–1 to 35–3 advisory committee's note.