This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was on state parole in California. An officer observed D walking down a street with a woman and a child. The officer knew that D was on parole and believed that he was facing an at-large warrant. The officer stopped D and asked him whether he had an outstanding parole warrant. The officer confirmed that D was on parole and that he did not have an outstanding warrant. Based solely on D's status as a parolee, the officer searched D. He found a cigarette box and a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine. P charged petitioner with possession of methamphetamine. The trial court denied D's motion to suppress finding that Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3067(a) (West 2000) authorized the search and that the search was not 'arbitrary or capricious.' D was convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law; that ' 'such a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment as long as it is not arbitrary, capricious or harassing' '; and that the search, in this case, was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer whether a condition of release can so diminish or eliminate a released prisoner's reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless search by a law enforcement officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.