Legal Document

547 U.S. 843 (2006) SAMSON v. CALIFORNIA No. 04-9728. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 22, 2006. Decided June 19, *845 Robert A. Long argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs was Martin Kassman. Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorney General California, respondent. brief were Bill Lockyer, General, R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor Donald De Nicola, Gerald Engler, Senior S. Kaye, Supervising and Doris Calandra, General. Jonathan L. Marcus States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Clement, Fisher, Dreeben, Deborah Watson.[*] *846 JUSTICE THOMAS delivered opinion Court. California law provides that every prisoner eligible release state parole "shall agree in writing to be subject search or seizure by a officer other peace at any time day night, with without warrant cause." Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 2000). We granted certiorari decide whether suspicionless search, conducted under authority this statute, violates Constitution. hold it does not. I In September 2002, petitioner Curtis Samson following conviction being felon possession firearm. On 6, Officer Alex Rohleder San Bruno Police Department observed walking down street woman child. Based prior contact petitioner, aware believed he facing an at-large warrant. Accordingly, stopped asked had outstanding Petitioner responded there no "was good standing his agent." Brief 4. confirmed, radio dispatch, did not have Nevertheless, pursuant 2000) based solely petitioner's *847 status parolee, searched During found cigarette box left breast pocket. Inside plastic baggie containing methamphetamine. The charged methamphetamine Health & Safety 11377(a) 1991). trial court denied motion suppress evidence, finding authorized "arbitrary capricious." App. 62-63 (Proceedings Motion Supress). A jury convicted charge, sentenced seven years' imprisonment. Appeal affirmed. Relying People Reyes, 19 4th 743, 968 P.2d 445 (1998), held searches parolees are lawful law; "`[s]uch is reasonable within meaning Fourth Amendment long arbitrary, capricious harassing'"; case capricious, harassing. A102394 (Ct. Cal., 1st Dist., Oct. 14, 2004), 12-14. certiorari, 545 1165 (2005), answer variation question open Knights, 534 112, 120, n. 6 (2001)whether condition can so diminish eliminate released prisoner's expectation privacy enforcement would offend Amendment.[1] Answering affirmative today, we affirm judgment Appeal. *848 II "[U]nder our general approach" "examin[e] totality circumstances" determine Amendment. Id., 118 (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether "is determined assessing, one hand, degree which intrudes upon individual's and, other, needed promotion legitimate governmental interests." 118-119 recently applied approach Knights. case, required probationer, "`[s]ubmit . person, property, place residence, vehicle, personal effects, anytime, warrant, arrest probation officer.'" 114 (brackets original). Several days after Knights been placed probation, police suspected involved several incidents arson vandalism. suspicion warrantless Knights' apartment drug paraphernalia. 115-116. concluded reasonable. evaluating intrusion into privacy, probationary "salient," id., 118, observing "[p]robation `one point continuum possible punishments ranging from solitary confinement maximum-security facility few hours mandatory community service,'" 119 (quoting Griffin Wisconsin, 483 868, 874 (1987)). Cf. Hudson Palmer, 468 517, 530 (1984) (holding prisoners privacy). further that, virtue their alone, probationers "`do enjoy "the absolute liberty *849 citizen entitled,"'" supra, Griffin, 874, turn quoting Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 480 (1972)), justifying "impos[ition] [of] conditions deprive offender some freedoms enjoyed law-abiding citizens," 119. also considered facts order clearly set out condition, informed condition. See U.S., these circumstances, significantly diminished. 119-120. searches, such apartment, necessary interests. Noting State's dual interest integrating back combating recidivism, see 120-121, credited "`assumption'" status, probationer "`is more likely than ordinary violate law,'" 120 880). "probationers even incentive conceal criminal activities quickly dispose incriminating evidence because they may supervision face revocation incarceration, proceedings rights proof beyond doubt, among things, do apply." U. S., 120. explained ignore reality recidivism its interests "protecting potential victims enterprise" fear running afoul 121. Balancing interests, "[w]hen has engaged activity, enough likelihood conduct occurring probationer's diminished *850 reasonable." Ibid. Because issue predicated both suspicion, reach probation. 6. Our attention directed albeit context parolee search. III As noted "continuum" state-imposed punishments. continuum, fewer expectations probationers, akin imprisonment pointed out, "parole established criminals. essence prison, before completion sentence, abide certain rules during balance sentence." Morrissey, 477. "In most cases, willing extend only able compliance requirements." Pennsylvania Bd. Probation Parole Scott, 524 357, 365 (1998). 283 F.3d 446, 461 (CA2 2002) ("[F]ederal supervised release, contrast meted addition to, lieu of, incarceration" omitted)); Cardona, 903 F.2d 60, 63 (CA1 1990) ("[O]n Court's punishments, stronger medicine; ergo, less average citizen's probationers" (citations internal omitted)).[2] *851 California's system consistent observations: inmate serve period either physical custody, elect complete sentence custody conditions. 3060.5 Under latter option, inmate-turned-parolee remains legal Corrections through remainder term, 3056, must comply all terms parole, including tests, restrictions association felons gang members, meetings officers, Regs., tit. 15, 2512 (2005); 3067 478 (discussing permissible parole). require report assigned immediately inform 72 change employment request permission travel distance 50 miles parolee's home, refrain firearms, specified weapons, knives unrelated employment. *852 2512. Parolees special conditions, psychiatric treatment programs, abstinence alcohol, residence approval, "[a]ny deemed Board [of Hearings] Rehabilitation] due unusual circumstances." 2513. extent demonstrate like severely alone. Additionally, "salient" respect lawrequiring inmates who opt submit "at time," 2000)was "clearly expressed" He signed submitting thus "unambiguously" it. acceptance clear unambiguous "significantly privacy." Examining circumstances pertaining "an imprisonment," 477, plain conclude society recognize legitimate.[3] *853 contrast, substantial. This repeatedly acknowledged "`overwhelming interest'" supervising "parolees. commit future offenses." Parole, (explaining very premise behind close supervision"). Similarly, reducing thereby promoting reintegration positive citizenship intrusions otherwise tolerated 879; empirical presented demonstrates significance California. November 30, 2005, over 130,000 parolees. population 68- 70-percent rate. Crime 37 (Apr. 2001) 68 percent adult returned 55 violation, 13 commission new felony offense); J. Petersilia, Challenges Prisoner Reentry 12 Policy Research Center Brief, p. 2 (June 2000), available http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/parole.pdf *854 (as visited 2006, Clerk file) ("70% state's paroled reoffend 18 monthsthe highest rate nation"). grave safety concerns attend recidivism. Ewing 538 11, 26 (2003) (plurality opinion) ("Recidivism serious public concern throughout Nation"). made render powerless address effectively. Contrary contention, ability serves manner aids, rather hinders, productive society. serving determinate when actual served plus statutory credits equal term imposed court, §§ 2931, 2933, 3000(b)(1) irrespective capable himself demonstrates, ill prepared handle pressures reintegration. Thus, intense supervision. Legislature given number paroles high rate, requirement individualized undermine effectively supervise protect acts reoffenders. conclusion makes eminent sense. Imposing requirement, urged give greater opportunity anticipate criminality. 120; 879. incentive-to-conceal justified "intensive" 875. That applies *855 force F. 3d, (observing rationale "appl[ies] fortiori" "federal which, `meted incarceration'"); Crawford, 372 1048, 1077 (CA9 2004) (Kleinfeld, J., concurring) parolees, "have prison felonies end terms" "deemed acted harmfully anyone except those parole"); Hudson, 529 "naive" institute "`planned random searches'" allow "anticipate" defeating purpose searches). observes majority Federal Government similar reintegration, despite having systems permit level suspicion. contends, constitutionally defective comparison. Petitioner's reliance practices jurisdictions however, misplaced. little relevance determination supervisory drawn meet needs reasonable, taking account substantially privacy.[4] *856 Nor merit argument permits "a blanket grant discretion untethered procedural safeguards," post, 857 (Stevens, dissenting). gives officers unbridled inflicting dignitary harms arouse strong resentment reintegrate society, belied prohibition "arbitrary, harassing" searches. 4th, 752, 753-754, P.2d, 450, 451; Bravo, 43 3d 600, 610, 738 336, 342 (1987) (probation); 3067(d) ("It intent authorize sole harassment").[5] dissent's claim unchecked "whim" 858-859, 860, ignores prohibition. Likewise, frustrates efforts permitting *857 third parties unavailing arise suspicion-based regime well. IV prohibit conducting parolee. It ordered. STEVENS, whom SOUTER BREYER join, dissenting. cases consistently assumed protection robust afforded citizens; probationers' lowered justify wrongdoing, 112 (2001). recognized responsibilities provide "`individualized counseling'" monitor charges' progress, 876-877 (1987), unique position judge "how requires," 876, rise departures strictures. ibid. ("Although impartial magistrate, neither normally conducts against citizen"). But nor supports safeguards, personnel welfare probationer. What sanctions today unprecedented curtailment liberty. Combining faulty syllogism circular *858 reasoning, concludes persons prisoners. However superficially appealing parity seem, runs roughshod precedent. rests intuition fares poorly scrutiny. And once acknowledges prisoners, jurisprudence conclusion, reached here first time, supported "special needs" nonetheless "reasonable." evil intended stamp out. Boyd States, 116 616, 625-630 (1886); also, e. g., Indianapolis Edmond, 531 32, (2000). pre-Revolutionary "writs assistance," permitted roving contraband, reviled precisely "placed `the man hands petty Boyd, 625. While `irreducible' component reasonableness" Amendment, Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 561 (1976)), dispensed programmatic "`special need' divorced enforcement," Ferguson Charleston, 532 67, 79 (2001); 37; 873 usually undertaken (and probable cause, Constitution says warrants be), exceptions `special needs, normal need enforcement, make probable-cause impracticable'"). Not surprisingly, seek grounds. Although past relied uphold *859 873, 880, never gone far subjected full whim happens encounter, reason suspect wrongdoing. all, role critical analysis; "we deal situation," explained, "in ongoing relationshipand not, least entirely, adversarialbetween object decisionmaker." need," articulated wayward societynot, principally, goal detecting crime, ante, 853.[1] accident, then, later upheld (again, *860 suspicion), forwent doctrine. 112. Even if relationship between her charge properly characterized giving "divorced Ferguson, 79; but 79, unknown "None precedents sanctioned routine inclusion design policy using arrests, threatened real, implement designed objectives." 88 (Kennedy, concurring judgment). Ignoring just how "closely guarded" "category searches," Chandler Miller, 520 305, 309 (1997), upholds entirely unsupported need. goes further: insisted safeguards ensure evenhandedness application; jettisoned, replaced measures actor's unfettered discretion. See, Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 654-655 (1979) (where "precludes insistence `some quantum suspicion,' generally assure `subject official field'" Camara Municipal City County Francisco, 387 523, (1967); footnote Brignoni-Ponce, 422 882 (1975) ("[T]he reasonableness demands something broad unlimited sought Government"). Here, policies placeno "standards, guidelines, procedures," 650to rein furnish *861 bulwark arbitrary exercise height unreasonableness. move making another. Coupling dubious holding 517 (1984), bald statement "parolees probationers," 850, two-steps way thus, avoids application principles altogether. logic, apparently, this: Prisoners privacy; prisoners; therefore, privacy. remarkable embraced opposite.[2] false premises. First, simply true vis-à-vis Constitution, tantamount materially distinct 482 (1972) ("Though subjects [a parolee] many applicable citizens, different prison"). free world facilitate guard antisocial behavior. Certainly, differs insofar "`meted *862 incarceration.'" Ante, 850 2002)). And, certainly, typically will committed crimesones warranting imprisonmentthan probationers. distinction, perhaps, support Williams, 417 373, 376, 1 (CA3 2005) ("`[T]here constitutional difference purposes [F]ourth [A]mendment'"). why distinction should result refusal acknowledge legitimate, harbored same reasonably harbor fathom. event, notion legitimately expects much utterly foundation. Palmer stand proposition "[a] right traditional individuals incarcerated. 527. necessary, practical matter, accommodate myriad `institutional objectives' facilities, chief security." 524; (O'Connor, ("I government's compelling safety, together necessarily ad hoc judgments officials, cell seizures appropriate categorical treatment" [3]); Treasury Employees Von Raab, 489 656, 680 (1989) (Scalia, These "institutional needs"safety guards, "internal order," sanitation, 527-528manifestly *863 apply discussed above Hudson's cannot mapped blindly onto situation case. enough, deciding someone's "legitimate," rely existence offending notice thereof. 852. reasoning circular. mere fact particular refuses mean legitimateespecially measure invades challenge outlier. two arguable exceptions, kind subjected. hardly cures circularity; loss subjective play "no meaningful role" analyzing legitimacy expectations, example, "if suddenly announce nationwide television homes henceforth entry." Smith Maryland, 442 735, 740-741, 5 (1979).[4] *864 Threaded suggestion deprivation part parcel convict's punishment. 848-850.[5] If person seems assume, then complain invasion outside still imprison him. Punishment, though, basis decided. (Indeed, settled "`retains [constitutional] inconsistent penological objectives corrections system.'" Turner Safley, 78, 95 (1987).) Nor, my knowledge, ever use punitive measure. Instead, relevant justifies dispensing requirements dictated Knightswithout recourse Hudsonthat favored allowing Never plunged below floor absent demonstration needs." Had officer, "supposed mind *865 [parolee]" guide transition 876-877, might doctrine requisite "reasonable suspicion" supplied individual-specific knowledge gained relationship. 879 (emphasizing office's "assess probabilities light [the probationer's] life, character, circumstances"). board specific history projected reoffending, evenhandedness. 860. scenarios, toward averting greatest mischief wrought officials' paroleeswhatever nature crimes, whatever needswithout protections.[6] unreasonable "inflic[t] society." 856; Terry Ohio, 392 1, 29 (1968). satisfied, *866 courts' "`arbitrary, harassing'" suffices avert harmswhich course counterproductive purported aim rehabilitating former reintegrating them 856 (citing (1998)). am unpersuaded. iterations, shield Framers selected evils action, caprice, harassment. To say averted is, fear, pay lipservice while withdrawing means.[7] Respectfully, dissent. NOTES [*] Briefs amici reversal filed American Civil Liberties Union et al. Graham Steven Shapiro, Alan Schlosser; Public Defenders Association Michael C. McMahon Kenneth I. Clayman; Citizens Rehabilitation Errants Weisberg; National Criminal Defense Lawyers Carter G. Phillips, Jeffrey T. Green, Pamela Harris. affirmance Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Pennsylvania, Howard Hopkirk, John Knorr III, Attorneys respective follows: Mike Beebe Arkansas, Suthers Colorado, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence Wasden Idaho, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Gregory D. Stumbo Kentucky, Joseph Curran, Cox Michigan, Jim Hood Mississippi, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, George Chanos Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Hardy Myers Oregon, South Paul Summers Tennessee, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Rob McKenna Washington, Darrell V. McGraw, West Virginia, Patrick Crank Wyoming; Americans Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., Schmidt, James P. Manak, Richard Weintraub, Bernard Farber; Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson. Los Angeles Scott Wm. Davenport; District Steve Cooley Mr. Cooley, pro se, Lael Rubin, Brentford Ferreira, Phyllis Asayama. [1] ("We diminished, completely eliminated, satisfied Amendment"). [2] nothing recognition precedents. dissent suggests, equate concluding rights. 861 (opinion Stevens, J.). view misperceives holding. holding, resolved resort analysis. analysis inapplicable cell). (1972). unqualified. statement, accepted truism, sheds indeed limitedand argues limited. itself cast doubt today's case Fourteenth Due Process hearing paroleinvokes wholly here. [3] find approach, "acceptance constituted consent Schneckloth [v. Bustamonte, 412 218 (1973),] sense waiver rights." yet construed statute governs crimes 1996, imposes requirement. has, 3067(b), "inmates refuse remain imprisoned. until (1) agrees (2) lost worktime his/her Middleton, 131 732, 739-740, 31 Rptr. 813, 818 (2005). Nonetheless, decline rest rationale. Court, note, chance squarely, raised theory courts below. 868 renders examination unnecessary. [4] "once needs' `reasonable.'" Post, 858. touchstone reasonableness, often "to private prerequisite seizure," 560 (1976), "Fourth irreducible suspicion," 561. Therefore, although limited namely, could "reasonable" earnest respecting decision remarkable. caveats, "unprecedented." 857. [5] precedent, act Sanders, 318, 331-332, 73 P.3d 496, 505-506 (2003); Amicus Curiae 20. 67 (2001), Griffin's Skinner Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 602 (1989), reserved "`routine prosecutions obtained administrative scheme inference pretext, impugn program,'" 15 Skinner, 621, 5). faith contend conceptually goals generally. Indeed, smooth occasionally diverge aims illustrated small amount illegal drugs grounds parole. 3063.1(a) Supp. 2006). Presumably, unnecessary perhaps counterproductive, means furthering system, reincarcerate simple possession. espouses, call reincarceration. indeterminate, includes core values unqualified liberty"); 875 (the "degree impingement unlimited"); 101 dissenting) home petitioners' urine taken"). Particularly O'Connor's concurrence, emphasized prison's 538, probably best understood casenot "consents" sophistry. choose cf. 852-853, 3, "choice" concerning condition; where exit speak `manifest fiction,' [parolee] purportedly waives accepting genuine option refuse.'" LaFave, Search Seizure: Treatise 10.10(b), pp. 440-441 (4th ed. 2004). vestige long-discredited "act grace" Compare Escoe Zerbst, 295 490, 492-493 (1935) ("Probation suspension comes grace coupled duration Congress impose"), Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 778, 782, 4 (1973) ("[A] longer process, dictum `act grace'" (citation omitted)). 482. [6] devotes portion rates 853-854. One statistics, postdate recidivism-reducing here, actually Reply 10, 10. Of course, deny valid. said, sufficient crime disposing protections, ago become dead letter. [7] observes, 856, 5, entitled known parolees." 20 505 (2003)). harassing someone judgment, susceptible invasion.

Classification Label: 0