(a)Any inmate who is eligible for release on parole pursuant to this chapter or postrelease community supervision pursuant to Title 2.05 (commencing with Section 3450) of Part 3 shall be given notice that he or she is subject to terms and conditions of his or her release from prison.
(b)The notice shall include all of the following:
(1)The person’s release date and the maximum period the person may be subject to supervision under this title.
(2)An advisement that if the person violates any law or violates any condition of his or her release that he or she may be incarcerated in a county jail or, if previously paroled pursuant to Section 3000.1 or paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 3000, returned to state prison, regardless of whether new charges are filed.
(3)An advisement that he or she is subject to search or seizure by a probation or parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant or with or without cause.
(c)This section shall only apply to an inmate who is eligible for release on parole for an offense committed
on or after January 1, 1997.
(d)It is not the intent of the Legislature to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct searches for the sole purpose of harassment.
(e)This section does not affect the power of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to prescribe and amend rules and regulations pursuant to Section 5058.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
96
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case:
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
· cites it 14× “15, § 2512 (2005); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067 (West 2000). See also Morrissey, supra, at 478 (discussing other permissible terms and conditions of parole).”
People v. Schmitz, 288 P.3d 1259 (Cal. 2012).
· cites it 16× “) Upon release, the parolee is notified that ―[y]ou and your residence and any property under your control may be searched without a warrant at any time by any agent of the Department of Corrections [and Rehabilitation] or any law enforcement officer.‖ (Cal.”
State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009).
· cites it 6× “2193 (quoting Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000)).”
United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “See Cal. Pen. Code § 3067 (c). Because the record does not establish that Lt.”
United States v. King, 736 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “2193 (quoting Cal.Penal Code § 3067). In contrast, King’s probation search condition was as follows: Defendant is subject to a warrantless search condition, as to defendant’s person, property, premises and vehicle, any time of the day or night, mth or without probable cause, by…”
State v. Villarreal, David, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2193 (citing Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000)).”
State Of Iowa Vs. James Maximiliano Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010).
· cites it 2× “2d at 255 ; see also Cal. Penal Code § 3067 (a) (West 2000). In determining the validity of the search, the Samson Court employed a totality-of-the-circumstances test under which the degree a search intrudes upon an individual’s privacy interests is weighed against the degree to…”
State of Iowa v. Isaac Andrew Baldon III, 829 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 2× “2d 250, 255 (2006) (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 3067 (a) (West 2000)). The Court noted that parole “is an established variation on imprisonment of convicted criminals,” and that the state is usually “willing to extend parole only because it is able to condition it upon compliance…”
State v. Rowan, 2012 WI 60 (Wis. 2012).
· cites it 3× “shall agree in writing to be subject to search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant and with or without cause.”
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “In Samson, the Supreme Court held that the totality-of-the-circumstances test was the proper mode of analysis to examine a California statute (Cal.Penal Code § 3067(a) (West 2000)) that permits suspicionless and warrantless searches of California parolees while they remain on…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 3067(a) — 45 cases
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
“15, § 2512 (2005); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067 (West 2000). See also Morrissey, supra, at 478 (discussing other permissible terms and conditions of parole).”
State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009).
“2193 (quoting Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000)).”
United States v. Kriesel, 508 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007).
“In Samson, the Supreme Court held that the totality-of-the-circumstances test was the proper mode of analysis to examine a California statute (Cal.Penal Code § 3067(a) (West 2000)) that permits suspicionless and warrantless searches of California parolees while they remain on…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 3067(b)(3) — 7 cases
United States v. King, 736 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2013).
“2193 (quoting Cal.Penal Code § 3067). In contrast, King’s probation search condition was as follows: Defendant is subject to a warrantless search condition, as to defendant’s person, property, premises and vehicle, any time of the day or night, mth or without probable cause, by…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 3067(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008).
“See Cal. Pen. Code § 3067 (c). Because the record does not establish that Lt.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 3067(d) — 4 cases
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).
“15, § 2512 (2005); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067 (West 2000). See also Morrissey, supra, at 478 (discussing other permissible terms and conditions of parole).”
State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009).
“2193 (quoting Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000)).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.