green
Positive treatment
Hot · 232 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 34×
157.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2012–2025 · 3 courts ·
…he fourth amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
at p. 857
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2014–2017 · 2 courts ·
…the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness, not individualized suspicion.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Murry v. Commonwealth
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
But see Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006) (holding that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee").
examined
Cited "but see"
Murry v. Commonwealth
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
But see Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006) (holding that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee").
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Thomas
he fourth amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lowe
cceptance of a clear and unambiguous search condition significantly diminishe reasonable expectation of privacy.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kellebrew v. Arkansas, State of
the fourth amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Maddox, Jr. v. The Parole Commission of Maryland and its Agents
arolees are on the 'continuum' of state-imposed punishments . . . have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers because parole is more akin to imprisonment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Travis Beechler
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the extent and reach of these conditions clearly demonstrate that parolees like petitioner have severely diminished expectations of pri- vacy by virtue of their status alone.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harris v. Ross
arolees are on the 'continuum' of state- imposed punishments . . . have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers because parole is more akin to imprisonment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Ronald Sharp
(7×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
he fourth amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Harbacek
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the essence 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.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sigal v. Bean
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
acceptance of a clear and unambiguous search 12 condition significantly diminished reasonable expectation of privacy.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gray v. Bansley / Anthony / Burdo LLC
parole differs from probation insofar as parole is meted out in addition to, not in lieu of, incarceration ... nd, certainly, parolees typically will have committed more serious crimes ... than probationers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hoegemann v. Palma
(2×)
the extent and reach of these conditions clearly demonstrate that parolees like petitioner have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Grady
(15×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
this court has acknowledged the grave safety concerns that attend recidivism" and "the fourth amendment does not render the states powerless to address these concerns effectively .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Ibrahim Bare
his court has repeatedly acknowledged that a state's interests in reducing recidivism and thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship among probationers and parolees warrant privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the fourth amendment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Howard Cotterman
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
under our general fourth amendment approach, we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a search is reasonable . . . .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sanchez v. Canales
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
arolees . . . have severely diminished expectations of privacy by vir- tue of their status alone.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Allen v. Perkins
samson ultimately held that a suspicionless search of a parolee pursuant to a california statute was constitutional
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Muhtorov
what is reasonable . . . depends on the nature of the search.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
VIOLETTE v. TURGEON
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
totality of the circumstances analysis" is applied in "situation involving even a suspicionless search of a conditional releasee
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Billy Curry, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness, not individual suspicion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
City of Cleveland v. Grunt
parolees have severely diminished expectations of privacy by virtue of their status alone
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Jacoby, T., Aplt.
(2×)
the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness, not individualized suspicion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Ramos
nder our general fourth amendment approach' we 'examin the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment,
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Salahuddin Smart v. Intensive Supervision Program
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Reid v. Pautler
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
nder our general fourth amendment approach' we 'examin the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of' the fourth amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Monica Bartley v. Florida Intracity Patrol, Inc.
the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness, not individualized suspicion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tapia v. City of Albuquerque
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
nder our general fourth amendment approach' we 'examin the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tapia v. City of Albuquerque
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
nder our general fourth amendment approach' we 'examin the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ysasi v. Brown
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Mark L. Ellis
y virtue of their status alone, probationers do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State of Iowa v. Christine Ann Kern
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
e conclude that petitioner did not have an 20 expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Frederick Lynch
he fourth amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Smith
imposing a reasonable suspicion requirement ... would give parolees greater opportunity to anticipate searches and conceal criminality.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy J. Hampton v. City of Madison Police Department, Anthony Ciufo, S. Clennon, G. Sosoka, Schmidt’s Towing Company and John Doe #1
If so, he must provide more information about the search itself, such as whether: he was on supervision at the time or was arrested during the incident, see Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850 (2006) (warrantless search of probationer’s apartment reasonable under the Fourth Amendment), or if the officers presented a warrant for the search.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dept. Pub. Safety & Corr. Svcs v. Proctor
See e.g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984) (holding “the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell” because “[t]he recognition of privacy rights for prisoners in their individual cells simply cannot be reconciled with the concept 23 of incarceration and the needs and objectives of penal institutions.”); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 852-57 (2006); McFarlin v. State, 409 Md. 391, 407 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Paul K. Strasser
This rule recognizes that extended supervision is a release from prison before the completion of a sentence 4 No. 2023AP1994-CR and thus “is more akin to imprisonment than probation is to imprisonment.” Samson, 547 U.S. at 846, 850, 857 (ruling that a California law that allowed law enforcement officers to search parolees “at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant and with or without cause,” did not violate the Fourth Amendment).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Hester v. Chester Cnty., Tenn.
(2×)
Parole, however, confers different rights and expectations than does probation because it is “more akin to imprisonment.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850 (2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Con Lysle Compton v. State of Alaska
(2×)
LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 10.10(d), at 578-88 (6th ed. 2020); see also State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-90 (Haw. 1984) (requiring reasonable suspicion as a matter of state constitutional law); State v. Velasquez, 672 P.2d 1254, 1260-61 (Utah 1983) (requiring reasonable suspicion); Commonwealth v. LaFrance, 525 N.E.2d 379, 381- 83 (Mass. 1988) (holding that the reasonable suspicion standard protects the public interest while also protecting probationers from unwarranted intrusions into privacy). 58 Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 847 (2006) (concluding that parole conditions author…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Jenkins
(2×)
Sharp at 753 , citing Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850-853 (2006); see State v. Currie, 2025- Ohio-670, ¶ 26 (1st Dist.).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Peo v. Mitchell
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Samson, 547 U.S. at 853, 855.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Clarissa Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections
See, e.g., County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420, 427 (2017) (use of force); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006) (search); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) (seizure).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marr v. United States
Under this approach, we “assess[ ], on the one hand, the degree to which” the search intruded upon Marr’s privacy “and, on the other, the degree to which [the search was] needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006) (quoting Knights, 534 U.S. at 119 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marcus Dixon
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The government’s “overwhelming interest” in No. 23-2427 19 supervising parolees and probationers “warrant[s] privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment.” Samson, 547 U.S. at 853 (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 365 (1998).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Pyles
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined ‘by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’ ” United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001) (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 -6- U.S. 295, 300 (1999)). ¶ 23 The fourth amendment does not categorically prohibit suspicionless parole searches (Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 851, 857 (2006)), but the search must…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robinson
This recognition springs from the principle that the government “interest[] in reducing recidivism and thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship . . . warrant[s] privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 853 (2006). 7 7 Although Samson v. California, 547 U.S. at 857 , concerned suspicionless searches of parolees, we have observed that the diminished Fourth Amendment rights of parolees “appl[y] with equal force to individuals . . . subject to federal supervised release—the reformed successor t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burns v. State of Hawaii
“Under the general Fourth Amendment approach, [courts] assess reasonableness by examining the totality of the circumstances and balancing the intrusion on the individual’s privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Sherman, 502 F.3d at 883 (citing Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JAMAL R. SAMPSON
v.
UNITED STATES ERIC T. FRANKLIN v. UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED STATES ERIC T. FRANKLIN v. UNITED STATES
05-9351, 05-9423.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 12, 2006.
547 U.S. 843
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.