In the case of Donald Curtis Samson v. California, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a California law that allows police to conduct warrantless searches on parolees without requiring suspicion of criminal activity or consent from the parolee. The court ruled in a 6-3 decision that such searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure because they are part of the conditions for release from prison into society under parole supervision. The majority opinion argued that this policy helps prevent recidivism and aids in public safety by providing an effective deterrent for former inmates considering reoffending. However, dissenting justices expressed concern about potential abuses of power and erosion of constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Donald Curtis Samson v. California, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow suspicionless searches of parolees was a significant departure from Fourth Amendment principles. He contended that while parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than ordinary citizens, they do not forfeit all protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He criticized the majority for failing to require any level of suspicion as a prerequisite for such invasive intrusions into personal privacy. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses by law enforcement officers who might use this ruling as an excuse to harass or intimidate individuals on parole without any evidence or reason to suspect criminal activity. In his view, this broad interpretation undermined fundamental constitutional rights and threatened individual liberties.