ksp205 also writes: “…we know that at least Massachusetts had parole officers by 1837.” Do you have a citation for a Massachusetts’s statute that authorized parole in 1837? I based my statement on 2 Neil P. Cohen, The Law of Probation and Parole, § 1:12 (2d ed. 1999) (“Parole’s initial use [in the United States] came in 1876…”)

When I referred to public transportation, I was thinking of government owned subways relied on by the least advantaged among us, not our airports where crippled old ladies with metal plates in their bodies are forced to strip, although any suspicion of dangerousness is totally absurd and should be causing lawyers as a group to march on Washington.

I think that the fact that these guys are criminals who have not yet “paid their debt to society” is the most salient fact.

Slippery slope arguments are sometimes valid, but I really can’t see how this slope is at all slippery. There is a simple, bright, clear difference between law-abiding people and those who have been convicted of felonies and placed in the custody of the Department of Corrections, whether they be physically behind bars or on parole.

The most intrusive suspicionless search presently authoritized, in my view, is the search on entering the courthouse. Unlike airports, many of the people entering courthouses are not there voluntarily. Jurors, witnesses, and defendants (both civil and criminal) have been summoned or subpoenaed. Unlike the Samson case, many of them have done nothing wrong. Yet these searches are authorized.

That’s not entirely true. For example, in the early 19th century NY had a “good-time” law, rewarding inmates with time off their sentence for good behavior. See http://parole.state.ny.us/INTROhistory.html.

I don’t know how widespread these laws were, but we know that at least Massachusetts had parole officers by 1837.

If the Founders wished the 4th Amendment rights to be so very circumscribed by the government…perhaps they would not have used…”shall not be violated”.

Sampson really changes nothing as far as 4th amendment motions here in California…(closing foootnote) but Court’s and Prosecutor’s may see it as the openning they need to eliminate 4th amendment protections for Californians. How do we identify and distinguish the “arbitrary and capricious” from the “vigorous enforcement”?

As for Davis…it will open the Confrontation Clause to every bit as much chicanary as did the “Roberts” reliability standards.

If the Founding Fathers wanted “Confrontation” limited to “testimonial” statements that were the product of “interrogations” perhaps they would have chosen different language.

If the staement is offered for the truth of the matter stated, and the statement is material to guilt or innocence…confrontation is the only Constitutionally permissible process.

“Likewise, this might have been a different case had a court or parole board imposed the condition at issue based on specific knowledge of the individual’s criminal history and projected likelihood of reoffending, or if the State had had in place programmatic safeguards to ensure evenhandedness.”

This statement seems to deflate his entire argument, as he is basically conceding the suspicionless searches are legitimate in some circumstances – ultimately he simply disagrees that they are necessary in this case

Stevens is all bent out of shape because in the prison context we search for contraband, weapons etc. to protect other prisoners and prison guards, and that supposedly is the raison d’etre to the idea that prisoners can be searched at any time, but why do prison guards and other prisoners get more protection than your average ordinary citizen?

Now, as a matter of policy (which is not the Court’s concern), is this a good idea? I don’t know, but Commentator’s argument that parolees will simply get better at concealing crimes seems to be a long stretch. I am also not aware of any serious study demonstrating that Three Strikes laws have made the murder rate go up.