Espinosa et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 365

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 29, 2014. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

KATHLEEN ESPINOSA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 06-04686 JSW

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
et al.,

ORDER REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
16

A probation search condition authorizes law enforcement to search with less than

17

probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but “only if the police had advance knowledge that the

18

search condition applied before they conducted the search.” United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d

19

1064, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2008). It appears as though Defendants contend that Mr. Sullivan had a

20

diminished expectation of privacy in light of his probation search condition, even if the

21

defendant officers were not aware of Mr. Sullivan’s probation or even of his presence in the

22

house before they entered. To the extent Defendants are taking the position that Mr. Sullivan’s

23

expectation of privacy was diminished by his probation search condition, despite the defendant

24

officers’ lack of advance knowledge of his presence and of his probation search condition, they

25

shall file a supplemental brief to set forth their supporting authority by no later than 5:00 p.m.

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

on Friday, August 1, 2014. If the Court finds that Defendants provide convincing authority in

2

support of their position, the Court will provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to submit a

3

responsive brief.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: July 29, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2