User:Assawyer/Samson v. California

Samson v. California, 527 U.S. ___ (2006), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the the decision of the California State Court of Appeal, which 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.

The search
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 Officer Rohleder recognized "from a prior contact" was the defendant in the case, Donald Curtis Samson. Rohleder knew that defendant 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 to "made contact" with him.

When Rohleder asked Samson if he had a warrant to which the Defendant replied that he did not have a warrant and "was in good standing with his parole agent." Rohleder confirmed over his police radio that defendant 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 Calfornia Penal Code Section 3067.(a).

Officer Rohleder found a cigarette box in Samson's left breast pocket which held a plastic baggie that contained methamphetamine. Samson was arrested and later charged with violating Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §11377(a), for possessing the methamphetamine.

Trial/appeal
At trial, Samson moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, which was denied by the trial court. The court found that 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 conviciton 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."

External link

 * 04-9728 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.