Citation network
Samson Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 2006
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
October Term, 2005 Samson V. CaliforniaSearch
-
must be examined to determine whether a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. KnightsSearch
-
and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined. Samson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Samson V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-9728 Donald Curtis Samson, Petitioner V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
imprisonment. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. Relying on People v. ReyesSearch
-
to answer a variation of the question this Court left open in United States v. KnightsSearch
-
internal quotation marks omitted). We recently applied this approach in United States v. KnightsSearch
-
Id. , at 119 (quoting Griffin v. WisconsinSearch
-
U. S. 868 , 874 (1987)). Cf. Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
Knights , supra , at 119 (quoting Griffin, supra, at 874, in turn quoting Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
U. S. 357 , 365 (1998). See also United States v. ReyesSearch
-
United States v. CardonaSearch
-
This Court has acknowledged the grave safety concerns that attend recidivism. See Ewing v. CaliforniaSearch
-
id., at 875. That concern applies with even greater force to a system of supervising parolees. See United States v. ReyesSearch
-
United States v. CrawfordSearch
-
People v. BravoSearch
-
our holding. If that were the basis of our holding, then this case would have been resolved solely under Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
prisoner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell). Nor is our rationale inconsistent with Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
United States v. KnightsSearch
-
People v. MiddletonSearch
-
s parole search condition is justified as a special need under Griffin v. WisconsinSearch
-
in conducting a suspicionless search absent knowledge that the person stopped for the search is a parolee. See People v. SandersSearch
-
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20. Samson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Samson V. CaliforniaSearch
-
expectation of privacy may justify their warrantless search upon reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, see United States v. KnightsSearch
-
progress, Griffin v. WisconsinSearch
-
The suspicionless search is the very evil the Fourth Amendment was intended to stamp out. See Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
see also, e.g. , Indianapolis v. EdmondSearch
-
under the Fourth Amendment, Edmond , 531 U. S., at 37 (quoting United States v. Martinez&nbhyphSearch
-
s unfettered discretion. See, e.g. , Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
quoting Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
The Court is able to make this unprecedented move only by making another. Coupling the dubious holding of Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
is tantamount to that of a prisoner or even materially distinct from that of a probationer. See Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
Ante , at 6 (quoting United States v. ReyesSearch
-
State has a stronger interest in supervising parolees than it does in supervising probationers. But see United States v. WilliamsSearch
-
notion that a parolee legitimately expects only so much privacy as a prisoner is utterly without foundation. Hudson v. PalmerSearch
-
see also Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
see Terry v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial