[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14004 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LAKESIA L. HARDEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00003-DHB-BKE-2 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14004 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 2 of 19

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14004

Before GRANT, LUCK, and HULL, Circuit Judges. LUCK, Circuit Judge: The Supreme Court has said that a warrantless search of a probationer’s home, supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and authorized by a probation condition, is reasonable un- der the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 (2001). The question here is whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s home that is otherwise reasonable as to the pro- bationer is rendered unreasonable merely because a non-proba- tioner is occupying the home. Joining our sister circuit, we hold that it is not where the occupant knows about the probation. See Smith v. City of Santa Clara, 876 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2017). An officer searched Tremayne Linder’s home without a war- rant because he was on probation, one of his conditions authorized warrantless home searches, and the officer had reasonable suspi- cion that marijuana was in the home. Those circumstances made the search reasonable. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 122. It was not ren- dered unreasonable merely because Linder’s girlfriend (Lakesia Harden), who knew Linder was on probation, was an occupant of the home. For that reason, the district court properly denied the motions to suppress the drugs found in Linder’s home and the statements that resulted from finding the drugs. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 21, 2016, a Georgia superior court sentenced Linder to twenty years of probation after he pleaded guilty to USCA11 Case: 20-14004 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 3 of 19

20-14004 Opinion of the Court 3

burglary and attempted armed robbery. His probation came with the condition that he “not violate the criminal laws of any govern- mental unit.” But he violated that condition by using marijuana. So, on January 12, 2018, the state court imposed additional proba- tion conditions. For example, Linder had to “enroll in, attend, and complete all phases” of a drug treatment program. And he had to “submit to a search of his . . . person, residence, papers, vehicle, and[] effects . . . , any time of the day or night with or without a search warrant whenever requested to do so by a [p]robation [s]upervisor or any law enforcement officer.” That condition al- lowed for “the use of anything seized as evidence in a judicial or disciplinary proceeding.” Linder signed the orders imposing the new conditions, ac- knowledging that his probation may be revoked if he violated them. But he violated his conditions again by missing mandatory meetings of his dru