Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006)
Primary Holding
A suspicionless search of a parolee conducted under California law does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as the conditions of parole significantly diminish the parolee's reasonable expectation of privacy.
In the case of Samson v. California, the Supreme Court decided that police can search a person on parole without needing a reason or a warrant. This matters because it shows that when someone is on parole, they have less privacy protection compared to others. This case is relevant if you or someone you know is on parole, as it means they can be searched by law enforcement at any time, even without suspicion of wrongdoing.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In September 2002, Donald Curtis Samson was on state parole in California after being convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On September 6, Officer Alex Rohleder of the San Bruno Police Department observed Samson walking with a woman and a child. Knowing that Samson was on parole and believing he might have an outstanding warrant, Officer Rohleder stopped him. Although Samson claimed he was in good standing and there was no outstanding warrant, Officer Rohleder confirmed his parole status via radio dispatch. Relying on California Penal Code §3067(a), which allows for suspicionless searches of parolees, Officer Rohleder conducted a search and discovered methamphetamine in a cigarette box in Samson's pocket. Following the search, the State charged Samson with possession of methamphetamine. At trial, Samson moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing it was unconstitutional. However, the trial court denied his motion, stating that the search was authorized by California law and was not arbitrary or capricious. Samson was subsequently convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law, provided they are not conducted in an arbitrary or harassing manner. The case reached the Supreme Court of the United States after the California Court of Appeal's ruling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the conditions of parole could diminish a parolee's reasonable expectation of privacy, thereby allowing for suspicionless searches without violating the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the suspicionless search of Samson was constitutional under the circumstances.
Whether a suspicionless search conducted under California Penal Code §3067(a), which requires parolees to agree to be subject to search at any time without a warrant or cause, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 22, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Thomas
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Consumer LostThe use of a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment, provided that the stop is not unreasonably prolonged beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of issuing a warning ticket.
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)
Consumer WonPrisoners may bring actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures, rather than being required to seek relief exclusively through federal habeas corpus statutes.
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006)
Consumer LostAn anticipatory search warrant is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is supported by probable cause and describes the triggering condition that must occur before the warrant is executed, but it is not required to include the triggering condition in the warrant itself.
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)
Consumer LostThe use of handcuffs to detain an individual during the execution of a search warrant is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, provided that the detention is reasonable under the circumstances, and questioning about immigration status during such detention does not constitute a separate Fourth Amendment violation.