Samson v. California, No. 04-9728.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtThomas
Citation165 L. Ed. 2d 250,126 S. Ct. 2193,547 U.S. 843
PartiesSAMSON v. CALIFORNIA
Decision Date19 June 2006
Docket NumberNo. 04-9728.
547 U.S. 843
126 S. Ct. 2193
165 L. Ed. 2d 250
SAMSON
v.
CALIFORNIA
No. 04-9728.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued February 22, 2006.
Decided June 19, 2006.

Pursuant to a California statute—which requires every prisoner eligible for release on state parole to "agree in writing to be subject to search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer . . ., with or without a search warrant and with or without cause"—and based solely on petitioner's parolee status, an officer searched petitioner and found methamphetamine. The trial court denied his motions to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted of possession. Affirming, the State Court of Appeal held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.

Held: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee. Pp. 848-857.

(a) The "totality of the circumstances" must be examined to determine whether a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Knights, 534 U. S. 112, 118. Reasonableness "is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Id., at 118-119. Applying this approach in Knights, the Court found reasonable the warrantless search of a probationer's apartment based on reasonable suspicion and a probation condition authorized by California law. In evaluating the degree of intrusion into Knights' privacy, the Court found his probationary status "salient," id., at 118, observing that probation is on a continuum of possible punishments and that probationers "do not enjoy `the absolute liberty'" of other citizens, id., at 119. It also found probation searches necessary to promote legitimate governmental interests of integrating probationers back into the community, combating recidivism, and protecting potential victims. Balancing those interests, the intrusion was reasonable. However, because the search was predicated on both the probation search condition and reasonable suspicion, the Court did not address the reasonableness of a search solely predicated upon the probation condition. Pp. 848-850.

(b) Parolees, who are on the "continuum" of state-imposed punishments, have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is. "The essence

[547 U.S. 844]

of 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." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 477. California's system is consistent with these observations. An inmate electing to complete his sentence out of physical custody remains in the Department of Corrections' legal custody for the remainder of his term and must comply with the terms and conditions of his parole. The extent and reach of those conditions demonstrate that parolees have severely diminished privacy expectations by virtue of their status alone. Additionally, as in Knights, the state law's parole search condition was clearly expressed to petitioner, who signed an order submitting to the condition and thus was unambiguously aware of it. Examining the totality of the circumstances, petitioner did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate. The State's interests, by contrast, are substantial. A State has an "`overwhelming interest'" in supervising parolees because they "are more likely to commit future criminal offenses." Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 365. Similarly, a State's interests in reducing recidivism, thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship among probationers and parolees, warrant privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment. The Amendment does not render States powerless to address these concerns effectively. California's 60- to 70-percent recidivism rate demonstrates that most parolees are ill prepared to handle the pressures of reintegration and require intense supervision. The State Legislature has concluded that, given the State's number of parolees and its high recidivism rate, an individualized suspicion requirement would undermine the State's ability to effectively supervise parolees and protect the public from criminal acts by reoffenders. Contrary to petitioner's argument, the fact that some States and the Federal Government require a level of individualized suspicion before searching a parolee is of little relevance in determining whether California's system is drawn to meet the State's needs and is reasonable, taking into account a parolee's substantially diminished expectation of privacy. Nor is there merit to the argument that California's law grants discretion without procedural safeguards. The concern that the system gives officers unbridled discretion to conduct searches, thereby inflicting dignitary harms that arouse strong resentment in parolees and undermine their ability to reintegrate into society, is belied by the State's prohibition on arbitrary, capricious, or harassing searches. And petitioner's concern that the law frustrates reintegration efforts by permitting intrusions into the privacy interests of third persons is unavailing because that concern would arise under a suspicion-based system as well. Pp. 850-857.

Affirmed.

[547 U.S. 845]

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 857.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT.

Robert A. Long argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Martin Kassman.

Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Donald E. De Nicola, Deputy Solicitor General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Martin S. Kaye, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Doris A. Calandra, Deputy Attorney General.

Jonathan L. Marcus argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Deborah Watson.*

[547 U.S. 846]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.


California law provides that every prisoner eligible for release on state parole "shall 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 without cause." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000). We granted certiorari to decide whether a suspicionless search, conducted under the authority of this statute, violates the Constitution. We hold that it does not.

I

In September 2002, petitioner Donald Curtis Samson was on state parole in California, following a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. On September 6, 2002, Officer Alex Rohleder of the San Bruno Police Department observed petitioner walking down a street with a woman and a child. Based on a prior contact with petitioner, Officer Rohleder was aware that petitioner was on parole and believed that he was facing an at-large warrant. Accordingly, Officer Rohleder stopped petitioner and asked him whether he had an outstanding parole warrant. Petitioner responded that there was no outstanding warrant and that he "was in good standing with his parole agent." Brief for Petitioner 4. Officer Rohleder confirmed, by radio dispatch, that petitioner was on parole and that he did not have an outstanding warrant. Nevertheless, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000) and based solely on petitioner's

547 U.S. 847

status as a parolee, Officer Rohleder searched petitioner. During the search, Officer Rohleder found a cigarette box in petitioner's left breast pocket. Inside the box he found a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine.

The State charged petitioner with possession of methamphetamine pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11377(a) (West 1991). The trial court denied petitioner's motion to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, finding that Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000) authorized the search and that the search was not "arbitrary or capricious." App. 62-63 (Proceedings on Motion to Supress). A jury convicted petitioner of the possession charge, and the trial court sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed. Relying on People v. Reyes, 19 Cal. 4th 743, 968 P. 2d 445 (1998), 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. No. A102394 (Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Oct. 14, 2004), App. 12-14.

We granted certiorari, 545 U. S. 1165 (2005), to answer a variation of the question this 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.1 Answering that question in the affirmative today, we affirm the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.

547 U.S. 848
II

"[U]nder our general Fourth...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1236 practice notes
  • Friedman v. Boucher, No. 05-15675.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 23, 2009
    ...a parolee, citing the requirement of "intense supervision" of such persons and the problems of "reintegration" of parolees into society. 547 U.S. 843, 854, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). However, the considerations underlying Samson, Kincade, and Kriesel are absent here. Friedman w......
  • Williams v. Berry, Civil Action No. 3:13CV38TSL–JMR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • July 19, 2013
    ...privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests,” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 2197, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Battiste, 343 Fed.Appx. at 965 (reasonablene......
  • Doe v. Nebraska, Nos. 8:09CV456
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • October 17, 2012
    ...only by parole officers and/or personnel of the Parole Administration.52 (Filing 521 at CM/ECF p. 50.) Relying on Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), the defendants contend that Doe 24, by virtue of his conditions of parole, is “already subject to a m......
  • Reid v. Pautler, No. CIV 13-0337 JB/KBM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • July 31, 2014
    ...is reasonable. Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. at 1856 (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)). See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006)("'[U]nder our general Fourth Amendment approach' we 'examin[e] the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1237 cases
  • Friedman v. Boucher, No. 05-15675.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 23, 2009
    ...a parolee, citing the requirement of "intense supervision" of such persons and the problems of "reintegration" of parolees into society. 547 U.S. 843, 854, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). However, the considerations underlying Samson, Kincade, and Kriesel are absent here. Friedman w......
  • Williams v. Berry, Civil Action No. 3:13CV38TSL–JMR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • July 19, 2013
    ...privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests,” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 2197, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Battiste, 343 Fed.Appx. at 965 (reasonablene......
  • Doe v. Nebraska, Nos. 8:09CV456
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • October 17, 2012
    ...only by parole officers and/or personnel of the Parole Administration.52 (Filing 521 at CM/ECF p. 50.) Relying on Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), the defendants contend that Doe 24, by virtue of his conditions of parole, is “already subject to a m......
  • Reid v. Pautler, No. CIV 13-0337 JB/KBM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • July 31, 2014
    ...is reasonable. Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. at 1856 (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)). See Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006)("'[U]nder our general Fourth Amendment approach' we 'examin[e] the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Is It Reasonable? A Legal Review of Warrantless Searches of Probationers and Parolees
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Policy Review Nbr. 27-7, November 2016
    • November 1, 2016
    ...R., & Baumer, E. (2005). Did ceasefire, compstat, and exile reduce homicide? Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 419-450.Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).State v. Davis, 191 S.W.3d118 (2006).State v. Devore, 134 Idaho 344, 2 P.3d 153 (2000).State v. Kottman, 707 N.W.2d 114 (2005).State......
  • Criminal Justice Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 Term
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 31-4, December 2006
    • December 1, 2006
    ...v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 63 (2004).Oregon v. Guzek, 126 S.Ct. 1226 (2006).Rice v. Collins, 126 S.Ct. 969 (2006).Samson v. California, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (2006).Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 125 S.Ct. 2669 (2006).Scheidler v. National Organization of Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003).Scheidler v. Nation......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT