[Marxism] Parolees must accept warrantless searches

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ginsburg and Kennedy voted for this one.  The hard right-wing four are
so far completely united and unwavering.  A clear sign that what is
involved is not simply neocons and the religious right, but a broad
ruling-class course that is being pushed, albeit in different ways, by
both parties.
Fred Feldman


rom the June 20, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0620/p11s01-usju.html

Supreme Court upholds California's searches of parolees
In a 6-to-3 ruling, the justices say that parolees must consent to
searches without a warrant.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

Parolees in California do not enjoy a constitutional right to be free
from suspicionless searches by law-enforcement officials.

Instead, they can be searched at any time, even when officials have no
reason to believe that they may be involved in wrongdoing.

In an important privacy ruling with major implications for individuals
on parole, the US Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 Monday to uphold a
California law that requires all state prisoners to agree as a condition
of release that they consent to warrantless searches by law enforcement.

"Examining the totality of the circumstances pertaining to petitioner's
status as a parolee ... we conclude that petitioner did not have an
expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate,"
writes Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion.

The state, Justice Thomas writes, has substantial interests in
supervising parolees because they are "more likely to commit future
criminal offenses."

He adds: "That some states and the federal government require a level of
individualized suspicion is of little relevance to our determination
whether California's supervisory system is drawn to meet its needs and
is reasonable, taking into account a parolee's substantially diminished
expectation of privacy."

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens writes that suspicionless
searches are the kind of improper government action the Fourth Amendment
was intended to prevent.

"What the court sanctions today is an unprecedented curtailment of
liberty," Justice Stevens writes in a dissent joined by Justices David
Souter and Stephen Breyer. "Combining faulty syllogism with circular
reasoning, the court concludes that parolees have no more legitimate an
expectation of privacy in their persons than do prisoners."

The decision stems from an incident on Sept. 6, 2002, in which a San
Bruno, Calif., police officer happened upon Donald Samson. Mr. Samson
was walking in a residential area with a friend and her 3-year-old son.

The officer, Alex Rohleder, knew Samson was on parole. He thought a
warrant may have been issued for Samson's arrest. He conducted a
pat-down search of Samson for weapons.

Officer Rohleder found no weapons and discovered from his dispatch
officer that Samson was not wanted on any outstanding warrant.
Nonetheless, the officer conducted a second, more thorough search. He
found a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine inside a cigarette box
in Samson's pocket. Rohleder then placed him under arrest for drug
possession.

Samson's lawyer asked a judge to suppress the prosecutor's use of the
drugs as evidence because they were the product of an illegal search.
The judge disagreed. Samson was convicted and sentenced to seven years
in prison. The state appeals court upheld the conviction, and the
California Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

In affirming the conviction, Thomas said that people released from
prison on parole are subject to a long list of terms and conditions that
restrict their freedom, including mandatory drug testing and rules that
prohibit them from associating with felons or gang members. Parolees
must also report to parole officers and request permission to travel
more than 50 miles from home.

"The extent and reach of these conditions clearly demonstrate that
parolees like petitioner have severely diminished expectations of
privacy by virtue of their status alone," Thomas writes.

Stevens says in his dissent that the high court's precedents had
recognized a higher level of privacy protection for parolees than prison
inmates. He says Monday's decision "runs roughshod" over those prior
holdings.

"Once one acknowledges that parolees do have legitimate expectations of
privacy beyond those of prisoners, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
does not permit the conclusion, reached by the court here for the first
time, that a search supported by neither individualized suspicion nor
'special needs' is nonetheless 'reasonable,' " Stevens writes.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and
related links

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright C 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All
rights reserved.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism