11.2: Samson v. California
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Donald Curtis Samson California
DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY
81-430 Roberts Court
LOWER COURT
State appellate court
CITATION
ARGUED
Feb 22, 2006
DECIDED
Jun 19, 2006
GRANTED
Sep 27, 2005
ADVOCATES
Jonathan L. Marcus argued the cause for Respondent
Ronald E. Niver argued the cause for Respondent
Facts of the case
A police officer stopped and searched Samson on the street in San Bruno, California. The officer had no warrant and later admitted he had stopped Samson only because he knew him to be on parole. The officer found that Samson was in possession of methamphetamines. Samson was arrested and charged with drug possession in state court. At trial Samson argued the drugs were inadmissible as evidence, because the search had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion and the state supreme court declined to hear the case.
Question
Did the Fourth Amendment prohibit the police from conducting a warrantless search of a person who was subject to a parole search condition, where there was no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and the sole reason for the search was because the person was on parole?
Conclusion
6–3 Decision
| FOR | AGAINST |
|---|---|
|
Ginsburg Kennedy Roberts Alito Scalia Thomas |
Stevens Souter Breyer |
Majority Opinion by Clarence Thomas
No. In a 6-to-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that Samson " did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize legitimate." Parole allows convicted criminals out of prison before their sentence is completed. An inmate who chooses to complete his sentence outside of direct physical custody, however, remains in the the Department of Correction's legal custody until the conclusion of his sentence, and therefore has significantly reduced privacy rights. In this case, Samson had also been required, as a condition of his parole, to sign an agreement that he would 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." This written consent to suspicionless searches, along with his already reduced privacy interests as a parolee, combined to make the search constitutional. Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented, arguing that parolees have an expectation of privacy greater than that of prisoners, which was violated by the search at issue in this case.