Scott

United States v. Scott

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 200604-10090California20,398 words

Opinion

Opinion

Facts

Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug pos- session and released on his own recognizance. In order to qualify for release, Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to “random” drug testing “anytime of the day or night by any peace officer without a warrant,” and to having his home searched for drugs “by any peace officer anytime[,] day or night[,] without a warrant.” There is no evi- dence that the conditions were the result of findings made after any sort of hearing; rather, the United States concedes that the conditions were merely “checked off by a judge from a standard list of pre-trial release conditions.”

Based on an informant’s tip, state officers went to Scott’s

(Cal. 1995)). It is unclear whether those cases would come out the same way today, as both were decided before United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (discussed in section 3 infra) and Ferguson v. City of Charles- ton, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) (discussed in section 2 infra). Further, the Califor- nia case involved a different procedural posture than our case, as it came up on habeas review rather than on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.