Background
Samuel Arellio Hernandez was on supervised release following a 2016 conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and using a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. His release conditions prohibited firearms and controlled substances and required him to notify his probation officer of any residence change. Location monitoring and surveillance revealed Hernandez spending significant time at an unapproved residence, lying to his probation officer about his whereabouts, and being linked to a domestic violence incident involving firearms at that location. Probation officers searched the residence and found three firearms and various drugs, leading to a new indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the reasonable suspicion standard for searches of supervised releasees. It found that officers had a particularized and objective basis to suspect firearm and drug activity at the unapproved residence, citing a specific witness report, Hernandez’s pattern of concealment, his prior weapons offenses, and a local officer’s identification of the property as a likely drug house. Regarding the constitutional challenge, the court held that Hernandez failed to show plain error, noting that his predicate conviction for drug trafficking involving a firearm demonstrated he was not an ordinary law-abiding citizen and posed a danger to the community.
At base, the overall scatterplot—the woman’s report tying firearms to the Mahlon House, Hernandez’s concealment of the Mahlon House, and his weapons history-gave rise to reasonable suspicion of firearm activities.
United States v. Arellio Hernandez, No. 25-1517 (6th Cir. July 16, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the authority of probation officers to conduct searches of supervised releasees at unapproved locations based on reasonable suspicion derived from witness tips, behavioral patterns, and prior criminal history. It also solidifies the precedent that individuals with serious drug and firearm convictions cannot successfully challenge felon-in-possession statutes as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.