This case answered in the affirmative a variation of the question the Court left open in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 120 n.6 (2001), "whether a condition of release can so diminish or eliminate a released prisoner's reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless search by a law enforcement officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment."
In the afternoon of September 6, 2002, San Bruno Police Officer Alex Rohleder observed "two adults and a little baby walking down the street." One of the adults, whom Rohleder recognized "from a prior contact" was the defendant in the case, Donald Curtis Samson. Rohleder knew that Samson was on parole and had heard from other officers that Samson "might have a parolee at large warrant." Rohleder then parked his police vehicle and approached Samson and "made contact" with him.
When Rohleder asked Samson if he had a warrant, Samson replied that he did not and "was in good standing with his parole agent." Rohleder confirmed over his police radio that Samson was not subject to a parole warrant, but was on parole for a prior parole violation. Rohleder conducted a search of Samson due to his status as a parolee. One of Samson's conditions of parole stated that he had agreed to "search and seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the night or day, with or without a search warrant or with or without cause." This condition is required by California Penal Code Section 3067.(a).
Rohleder found a cigarette box in Samson's left breast pocket that held a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine. Samson was arrested and later charged with violating California Health and Safety Code Ann. §11377(a), for possessing the methamphetamine.
State court trial and appealedit
At trial, Samson moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, which was denied by the trial court. The court found that Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3067(a) authorized the search and that the search was not "arbitrary or capricious." The jury convicted Samson and the trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison.
Samson appealed his conviction on the grounds the trial court improperly admitted the evidence from the search. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling, relying on People v. Reyes, 19 Cal. 4th 743, 968 P. 2d 445 (1998), in which the court held that:
suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law; that " '[s]uch a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment as long as it is not arbitrary, capricious or harassing' "; and that the search in this case was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
^The Supreme Court, 2005 Term — Leading Cases, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 183 (2006).
External linksedit
Text of Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
April 12, 2024
samson, california, 2006, united, states, supreme, court, case, which, court, affirmed, california, court, appeal, ruling, that, suspicionless, searches, parolees, lawful, under, california, that, search, this, case, reasonable, under, fourth, amendment, unite. Samson v California 547 U S 843 2006 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal s ruling that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary capricious or harassing 1 2 Samson v CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued February 22 2006Decided June 19 2006Full case nameDonald Curtis Samson v the State of CaliforniaDocket no 04 9728Citations547 U S 843 more 126 S Ct 2193 165 L Ed 2d 250 2006 U S LEXIS 4885Case historyPriorCert granted 545 U S 1165 2005 HoldingThe Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P Stevens Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy David SouterClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoCase opinionsMajorityThomas joined by Roberts Scalia Kennedy Ginsburg AlitoDissentStevens joined by Souter BreyerLaws appliedU S Const amend IV This case answered in the affirmative a variation of the question the Court left open in United States v Knights 534 U S 112 120 n 6 2001 whether a condition of release can so diminish or eliminate a released prisoner s reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless search by a law enforcement officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment Contents 1 Background 1 1 Police search 1 2 State court trial and appeal 2 References 3 External linksBackground editPolice search edit In the afternoon of September 6 2002 San Bruno Police Officer Alex Rohleder observed two adults and a little baby walking down the street One of the adults whom Rohleder recognized from a prior contact was the defendant in the case Donald Curtis Samson Rohleder knew that Samson was on parole and had heard from other officers that Samson might have a parolee at large warrant Rohleder then parked his police vehicle and approached Samson and made contact with him When Rohleder asked Samson if he had a warrant Samson replied that he did not and was in good standing with his parole agent Rohleder confirmed over his police radio that Samson was not subject to a parole warrant but was on parole for a prior parole violation Rohleder conducted a search of Samson due to his status as a parolee One of Samson s conditions of parole stated that he had agreed to search and seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the night or day with or without a search warrant or with or without cause This condition is required by California Penal Code Section 3067 a Rohleder found a cigarette box in Samson s left breast pocket that held a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine Samson was arrested and later charged with violating California Health and Safety Code Ann 11377 a for possessing the methamphetamine State court trial and appeal edit At trial Samson moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence which was denied by the trial court The court found that Cal Penal Code Ann 3067 a authorized the search and that the search was not arbitrary or capricious The jury convicted Samson and the trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison Samson appealed his conviction on the grounds the trial court improperly admitted the evidence from the search The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court s ruling relying on People v Reyes 19 Cal 4th 743 968 P 2d 445 1998 in which the court held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law that s uch a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment as long as it is not arbitrary capricious or harassing and that the search in this case was not arbitrary capricious or harassing References edit Samson v California 547 U S 843 2006 The Supreme Court 2005 Term Leading Cases 120 Harv L Rev 183 2006 External links editText of Samson v California 547 U S 843 2006 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Samson v California amp oldid 1175149446, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
