PRESS RELEASE

The United States Supreme Court has rejected a habitual criminal’s claim that a warrantless search, which uncovered drugs in his possession, violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The Court’s 6 to 3 decision in the case of Samson v. California upheld a state law which provides that, as a condition of parole, a defendant is subject to searches by a police officer at any time of the night or day, with or without a search warrant or suspicion.

The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case to encourage a Supreme Court decision upholding searches of paroled criminals.  “Today’s decision preserves state authority to closely monitor criminals released back into society,” said Foundation President Michael Rushford.

In the Court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Contrary to petitioners’s contention, California’s ability to conduct suspicionless searches of parolees serves its interest in reducing recividism, in a manner that aids, rather than hinders, the reintegration of parolees into productive society.”

The case involved the March 2003 conviction of Donald Samson for possession of methamphetamine.  The drugs were discovered during a search of Samson by a San Bruno police officer who recognized him as a criminal on parole for a previous firearm conviction.  At his trial, the jury learned that Samson had four prior felony convictions.  Samson was sentenced to prison for seven years.

Samson appealed, arguing that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.  The nation’s highest court agreed to consider his claim after it was rejected by the California Court of Appeal and the state Supreme Court declined further review.

The Foundation brief argued that criminals on parole present a much higher threat to public safety than ordinary citizens.  Because of this threat, the state is obligated to closely supervise parolees to discourage them from committing new crimes.  The Foundation cited several studies indicating that the rate that criminals on parole or probation re-offend (called the recidivism rate) is many times the offense rate of the general population.  Researchers estimate that between 22% and 65% of felons released from prison were arrested for another felony within three years.  Even the low-end estimate of a 22% recidivism rate for ex-felons is over seven times the arrest rate for the general population (3%).  The increased danger presented by criminals on parole justifies the requirement that they be subject to frequent searches by police.  The alternative is to abandon parole entirely and keep criminals in prison for their full sentences, where they can be searched several times each day.

“Because of safety concerns, ordinary citizens are subject to a warrantless search before they are allowed to board an airplane or enter a courthouse,” said Rushford.  “The threat to public safety posed by criminals free on parole is much higher,” he added.