Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Thursday a district court’s ruling to impose a supervised release condition on a convicted rapist that failed to register as a sex offender in Indiana and rejected the man’s contention that the condition violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Roberto Cruz-Rivera was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree assault in New York in 2001 after he violently attacked two women who suffered from a mild mental disability.
He had stabbed both women and raped one woman.
Cruz-Rivera was released from prison for those offenses in October 2015.
According to court records, because of the rape conviction, Cruz-Rivera was required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
Between September 2017 and March 2020, Cruz-Rivera lived and worked in Indiana.
During this time, he was employed by a staffing agency and worked throughout Indianapolis, including at the Convention Center, Lucas Oil Stadium, the JW Marriott Hotel, Butler University and an elementary school.
He also was convicted of two felonies — resisting law enforcement and auto theft — in Indianapolis during that time.
Cruz-Rivera never registered as a sex offender in Indiana.
A grand jury indicted Cruz-Rivera on one count of failing to register as a sex offender between Sept. 15, 2017, and March 14, 2020.
Cruz-Rivera chose to proceed pro se in the district court.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana conducted a bench trial and found him guilty.
Cruz-Rivera was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
The district court sentenced him to three years and five months in prison and five years of supervised release.
Before Cruz-Rivera’s sentencing hearing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation report in which it recommended the following condition of supervised release:
“You shall submit to the search by the probation officer of your person, vehicle, office/business, residence, and property, including any computer systems and hardware or software systems, electronic devices, telephones, and Internet-enabled devices, including the data contained in any such items, whenever the probation officer has a reasonable suspicion that a violation of a condition of supervision or other unlawful conduct may have occurred or be underway involving you and that the area(s) to be searched may contain evidence of such violation or conduct. Other law enforcement may assist as necessary. You shall submit to the seizure of contraband found by the probation officer. You shall warn other occupants these locations may be subject to searches.”
Cruz-Rivera objected to this proposed condition of supervised release.
He contended that the condition, which allows search and seizure “without a search warrant supported by probable cause,” violated his Fourth Amendment right “to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.”
At the sentencing hearing, the district court overruled Cruz-Rivera’s objection to the search condition.
The district court entered a final judgment that listed the conditions of supervised release with which Cruz-Rivera was required to comply.
The judgment contained the search condition — as it appeared in the PSR and was read into the record at the sentencing hearing — as Condition 13.
Cruz-Rivera appealed and challenged one aspect of his sentence.
He submitted that the district court erred in imposing a discretionary condition of supervised release that allows a probation officer, with the assistance of law enforcement, to search his person and property upon reasonable suspicion that he has violated a condition of supervised release or has committed other unlawful conduct.
The 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and found the court did not err in imposing the supervised release condition.
Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
Ripple wrote that the 7th Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Condition 13 on Cruz-Rivera and made adequate findings supporting a conclusion that the condition is consistent with the statutory factors for conditions of supervised release.
“Based on Mr. Cruz-Rivera’s criminal history, the district court articulated that Condition 13 was necessary to deter him from future unlawful conduct and to protect the public. Allowing probation officers, with the assistance of law enforcement, to search Mr. Cruz-Rivera and his property, including his electronic devices and data, on the basis of reasonable suspicion will help ensure that he complies with his legal obligations in the future,” Ripple wrote.
Ripple noted that, because he did not register, Cruz-Rivera was hired to work throughout Indianapolis, in positions he should not have been permitted to hold.
The appellate judge called it particularly concerning, as the district court noted, that Cruz-Rivera had been permitted to work at an elementary school.
Ripple rejected Cruz-Rivera’s contention that Condition 13 fails the third criterion of § 3583(d) because it is inconsistent with statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission regarding sentencing guidelines.
“The Guidelines do not expressly recommend the search condition for failing to register under SORNA, but the statute provides that a court may impose the search condition for such offenders. The district court therefore was not required to address this difference between 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(7) when it imposed Condition 13 on Mr. Cruz-Rivera,” Ripple wrote.
Judges Michael Scudder and John Lee concurred.
The case is United States of America v. Roberto Cruz-Rivera, 22-1325.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.