US v. Cervantes, No. 15-50459 (6-19-17)(Watford w/Trott & McKeown).  The 9th holds that a state (California) sentence of "mandatory supervision" is closer to parole than to probation.  As such, a search of a defendant's hotel room without a warrant and without suspicion is authorized under the defendant's supervision conditions and under the Fourth Amendment. 

What led to the search?  The defendant was cited for jaywalking (!).  He told the officer he was at a hotel, shared a room with his girlfriend, and he had the hotel key with the room number with him.  The police then went to the hotel, searched his room, and found counterfeit currency.  You see what trouble a jaywalking citation can cause (or a tip?).

The defendant was on mandatory supervision. The conditions included suspicionless and warrantless search or person, residences, and premises.  His expectations of privacy were sharply diminished as the 9th held the status was closer to parole than probation.  Samson, 547 US at 857. The 9th then found such a search reasonable.  For these purposes, the 9th had an interesting discussion on the distinction between residence and premises.  For a search of a residence, precedent requires that probable cause exists that the parolee resides at the place.  This is to protect third parties' privacy.  Premises is a looser term, and refers to a building or parts of a building.  This would include a temporary hotel room.  The 9th found the premises controlled by the defendant given the circumstances.

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/19/15-50459.pdf