No, the search was legal. People on parole are still technically serving their prison sentence, just outside prison walls, so they have very few privacy rights. Since Samson agreed to be searched anytime in order to get out of prison early, he gave up most of his privacy. The government has a very important job to watch parolees closely to make sure they don't commit more crimes. Random, suspicionless searches are a reasonable way to do that.

Yes, the search was illegal. The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is to stop the government from searching people for no reason. People on parole are living in society, not in a prison cell, so they should have some privacy rights. Letting any police officer search a parolee whenever they want gives the police too much power and opens the door for them to harass people. A search without a reason is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to prevent.

The Court said the search was okay because parolees have much less privacy than regular people. When you look at the whole situation, including the rules of parole that Samson agreed to, he didn't have a privacy expectation that society would consider reasonable. The state has very strong reasons to closely watch parolees, to help them reintegrate into society and prevent them from committing more crimes. Allowing suspicionless searches helps serve those goals.

The dissenting justices disagreed, saying the decision takes away liberty in an unprecedented way based on faulty logic. They argued that parolees do have some legitimate privacy expectations, and that the majority's reasoning - basically that parolees are like prisoners, and prisoners have no Fourth Amendment rights, so parolees don't either - is circular and ignores precedent. They felt the state should have to show individualized suspicion to search, and that allowing suspicionless searches removes an important protection against arbitrary and abusive government power.

The Court first concluded that parolees "have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone."

The Supreme Court has held that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee."

Whether a search is reasonable is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.

—noting that "under our general Fourth Amendment approach we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

—the Supreme Court had to decide whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred from a suspicionless search conducted under the authority of a California statute that required every state parolee to agree in writing "to be subject to search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant and with or …

The Samson Court noted that "parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is to imprisonment."

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that a state has an "overwhelming interest" in "reducing recidivism and thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship among probationers and parolees [that] warrant [s] privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment."

Applying the "totality of the circumstances" test, balancing the intrusion of the challenged search on privacy interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests

The Supreme Court has held in Samson that parolees do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in these circumstances, and, therefore, the Fourth Amendment protections do not apply.

The Court noted that parole is more akin to imprisonment than is probation since parole "is release from prison, before the completion of sentence, on the condition that the prisoner abide by certain rules during the balance of the sentence."

No. A police officer's suspicionless search of a parolee does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Using a totality of the circumstances balancing test, the Court weighed the intrusion on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Parolees are on a 'continuum of state-imposed punishments' and have severely diminished expectations of privacy, even more so than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment. Samson was unambiguously aware of the clear search condition, further reducing his legitimate expectation of privacy. Conversely, the State has an 'overwhelming interest' in supervising parolees to combat recidivism and protect public safety, an interest supported by California's high recidivism rate. The Court concluded that imposing a reasonable suspicion requirement would undermine the state's ability to effectively supervise parolees, and that the California law's prohibition on 'arbitrary, capricious or harassing' searches provides a sufficient safeguard against officer abuse.

Yes. A suspicionless search of a parolee by a law enforcement officer for general crime control purposes violates the Fourth Amendment. The majority's decision is an 'unprecedented curtailment of liberty' that wrongly equates parolees with prisoners, ignoring that parolees retain some legitimate expectation of privacy. Suspicionless searches are the 'very evil' the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent and have only been permitted in narrow 'special needs' cases, which are inapplicable here because this search was conducted by a regular police officer for general law enforcement purposes, not a parole officer for supervisory ones. The Court's reasoning is circular, as a state cannot eliminate a person's expectation of privacy simply by announcing its intention to conduct searches. The California scheme lacks any programmatic safeguards to prevent arbitrary searches based on the 'unfettered discretion' of any officer, and a vague prohibition on 'harassing' searches is not an adequate substitute for the constitutional requirement of individualized suspicion.

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee because parolees have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone. Examining the totality of the circumstances pertaining to petitioner's status as a parolee, including the plain terms of the parole search condition, the Court concludes that petitioner did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate. The State's substantial interests in supervising parolees to reduce recidivism and promote reintegration warrant privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment. California's ability to conduct suspicionless searches of parolees serves its interest in reducing recidivism in a manner that aids, rather than hinders, the reintegration of parolees into productive society.

The Court's holding is an unprecedented curtailment of liberty that rests on faulty syllogism and circular reasoning. The Court concludes that parolees have no more legitimate an expectation of privacy than prisoners, but this ignores precedent establishing that parolees do have legitimate expectations of privacy beyond those of prisoners. The Court's logic - that prisoners have no Fourth Amendment rights, parolees are like prisoners, therefore parolees have no Fourth Amendment rights - is flawed. The Court also relies on the existence of the parole search condition and petitioner's notice thereof, but this is entirely circular reasoning. The Court's suggestion that deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights is part of a convict's punishment is also misguided, as the Court has never sanctioned the use of any search as a punitive measure. The requirement of individualized suspicion is the shield the Framers selected to guard against the evils of arbitrary action, caprice, and harassment, and the Court's decision to withdraw that shield pays lipservice to the end while withdrawing the means.

Samson v. California

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot