A published Sixth Circuit panel said officers had reasonable suspicion to search a Michigan house tied to a supervised releasee, rejecting both suppression arguments and a constitutional attack on the federal felon-in-possession law.

What happened

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a felon-in-possession conviction against Samuel Arellio Hernandez, ruling that probation officers had enough suspicion to search a house where he had been spending time while on supervised release.

The published panel said officers could search the Mahlon House because the facts gave them a "particularized and objective basis" to suspect Hernandez was engaged in firearm and drug activity there in violation of his release conditions. The court also rejected Hernandez's constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(1), finding no basis to disturb his conviction.

Hernandez was on supervised release after earlier convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and using or carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. His release conditions barred firearms and controlled substances, required notice before a residence change, and later allowed searches when officers had reasonable suspicion that he violated supervision conditions and that the searched area would contain evidence.

According to the opinion, location-monitoring data showed Hernandez spending large portions of the day at the Mahlon House, while his approved residence was nearby at the Magnolia House. Officers also had information from a domestic-violence incident in which a woman said Hernandez had put a firearm in her face at the Mahlon House and removed firearms before police arrived, while surveillance and later statements tied him to the property.

The panel held that the search was supported by more than a hunch. It pointed to the firearm report, Hernandez's attempts to conceal his presence at the Mahlon House, his prior weapons history, repeated positive drug tests, location data and law enforcement information that the house was likely connected to drug activity.

The court also rejected Hernandez's argument that Section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. It said Sixth Circuit precedent foreclosed his facial challenge, and that his as-applied challenge, raised for the first time on appeal, failed because Hernandez had not shown that applying the statute to him was clearly or obviously unconstitutional.

The ruling leaves in place Hernandez's conviction and 78-month prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release.