This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Donald Curtis Samson v. California concerns a suspicionless search of a parolee and raises Fourth Amendment issues.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner
Petitioner argues that the search was not based on individualized suspicion and therefore was unreasonable.
According to Petitioner (Mr. Long), according to Petitioner (Mr. Long), petitioner contends that the officer had complete discretion, making the search unconstitutional.
Respondent
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), respondent relies on the 1996 California statute that authorizes police and parole officers to search parolees without individualized suspicion.
According to Government (Mr. Marcus), according to Government (Mr. Marcus), the Government argues that the proper test is whether the search is objectively related to supervision, public safety, and rehabilitation.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Statistics show that a high percentage of parolees return to prison, underscoring public‑safety concerns.
Broad, suspicionless searches are described as a “breathtakingly broad invasion of privacy.”
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- fe739287e99e6894138c-r1-ad3a1122ea0665ce.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.