Webparolee,” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006), at least where the search is “authorized by state law,” United States v. Matthews, 928 F.3d 968, 976 (10th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).1 And the district court found that Colorado law authorized CPOs Stegner and Phillips to conduct the search, citing WebSamson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the decision of the California Court of Appeal; which held that …
Samson v. California - Wikipedia
WebGet Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at … WebJun 19, 2006 · SAMSON v. CALIFORNIA. certiorari to the court of appeal of california, first appellate district. No. 04–9728. Argued February 22, 2006—Decided June 19, 2006. ... hawaiian fresh fruit salad
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: SEARCHES OF PROBATIONERS
WebCite as: 547 U. S. 843 (2006) 845 Syllabus Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., … WebSee Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006); State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 (Tenn. 2009). Samson involved a challenge by a parolee to a California law requiring every prisoner eligible for parole to “‘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 ... WebMar 30, 2015 · See, e.g., Samson v. California, 547 U. S. 843 (2006) (suspicionless search of parolee was reasonable); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995) (random drug testing of student athletes was reasonable). The North Carolina courts did not examine whether the State’s monitoring program is reasonable—when properly viewed as a ... bosch part number d928