SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
547 U.S. 843 (2006)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The trial court denied D's motions to suppress that evidence, and D 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.
FACTS: D was on state parole in California. An officer observed D walking down a street with a woman and a child. The officer knew that D was on parole and believed that he was facing an at large warrant. The officer stopped D and asked him whether he had an outstanding parole warrant. The officer confirmed that D was on parole and that he did not have an outstanding warrant. Based solely on D's status as a parolee, the officer searched D. He found a cigarette box and a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine. P charged petitioner with possession of methamphetamine. The trial court denied D's motion to suppress finding that Cal. Penal Code Ann. 3067(a) (West 2000) authorized the search and that the search was not 'arbitrary or capricious.' D was convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It 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 granted certiorari to answer 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.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment