Rios

MEMORANDUM *

The facts and procedural history of this case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here.

Appellant Peter John Rios challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence. Rios first argues that the evidence should be suppressed because the parole officers’ authority to conduct the search was based on Condition 11(h) of the Certificate of Parole, and that Condition 11(h) was invalid under Guam Code, title 9, § 80.62 because it was imposed by the Parole Board rather than by a court. We reject this argument. Guam Code, title 9, § 80.80 authorized the Parole Board to impose its own conditions of parole, and, in reliance thereon, Condition 11(h), authorized the search.

Rios next argues that the evidence should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment because the search was not supported by reasonable suspicion. We also reject this argument. Reasonable suspicion was not necessary because Guam law and Condition 11(h) of the Certificate of Parole permitted suspicionless searches of Rios’s residence. See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 , 126 S.Ct. 2193, 2199 , 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006) (holding that…