7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Dustin Caya
Case No.: 19-2469
Officials: BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Warrantless Search – Extended Supervision – Suppression of Evidence
Dustin Caya was indicted on drug-trafficking and firearms charges based on evidence found in his home during a search conducted on the authority of section 302.113(7r) of the Wisconsin Statutes. The statute authorizes law-enforcement officers to search the person, home, or property of a criminal offender serving a term of “extended supervision”—the period of community supervision that follows a prison term—based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of supervision. Caya moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his home, arguing that the search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The district judge denied the motion. Caya pleaded guilty, reserving his right to challenge the suppression ruling on appeal.
We affirm the judgment. Fourth Amendment law has long recognized that criminal offenders on community supervision have significantly diminished expectations of privacy. More specifically, the privacy expectations of offenders on post imprisonment supervision are weak and substantially outweighed by the government’s strong interest in preventing recidivism and safely reintegrating offenders into society. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that a law-enforcement officer may search a person on parole without any suspicion of criminal activity. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 847 (2006). In Wisconsin extended supervision is essentially judge-imposed parole. It follows that a search under section 302.113(7r), which requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of supervision, is constitutionally permissible.