United States v. Marcel King

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 11-10182 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v.  3:10-cr-00455- MARCEL DARON KING, WHA-1 Defendant-Appellant.  OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 20, 2012* San Francisco, California

Filed August 1, 2012

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.

Per Curiam Opinion

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

8537 8538 UNITED STATES v. KING ‡

COUNSEL

Barry J. Portman, Federal Public Defender, Daniel P. Blank, Assistant Federal Pubic Defender, San Francisco, California, 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, California, for the appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

[1] 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, UNITED STATES v. KING 8539 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 pri- vacy than probationers.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850 (2006).

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