In Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the legality of a suspicionless search conducted under the authority of a California statute requiring all parolees to agree to be subject to search or seizure by law enforcement officers with or without a warrant or cause at any time. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit such a search, noting that under California precedent, an officer would not act reasonably in conducting a suspicionless search absent knowledge that the person stopped for the search is a parolee. 547 U.S. at 856-857, n. 5. The Court held that a suspicionless parole search, conducted under the authority of section 3067 of the Penal Code, was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that a parolee remains in the custody of correctional authorities during the remainder of his prison term and must comply with the terms and conditions of parole. (Id. at p. 850.) The California parole search condition required the parolee to submit to a search by a parole or police officer at any time without suspicion. (Id. at p. 852.) Under the circumstances, the parolee did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy that society would recognize. (Ibid.) In contrast, the legitimate governmental interests involved in suspicionless parole searches were substantial. (Samson, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 853.) Statistics showed that parolees were likely to commit future crimes and most parolees required intense supervision to combat recidivism and promote positive citizenship. (Id. at pp. 853-854.) Imposing a reasonable suspicion requirement would give parolees greater opportunity to anticipate searches and conceal criminal activity. (Id. at pp. 854-855.) The Supreme Court held that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee." (Id. at p. 857.) The court reasoned that a parolee remains in the custody of correctional authorities during the remainder of the parolee's prison term and must comply with the terms and conditions of parole. (Id. at p. 850.) The California parole search condition pursuant to Penal Code section 3067 required the parolee to submit to a search by a parole officer or police officer at any time without suspicion. (Samson, supra, at p. 852.) Under the circumstances, the parolee did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate. (Ibid.) The Samson court found, by contrast, that the State's interests in supervising parolees and reducing recidivism were substantial. Statistics showed that parolees were likely to commit future crimes, and most parolees required intense supervision to combat recidivism and promote positive citizenship. (Samson, supra, 547 U.S. at pp. 853-854.) Imposing a reasonable suspicion requirement on parole searches would give parolees greater opportunity to anticipate searches and conceal their criminal activity. (Id. at pp. 854-855.) The United States Supreme Court held that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee." (Id. at p. 857.) Samson involved the suspicionless search of a California parolee conducted under the authority of former section 3067, subdivision (a). (Samson, supra, at p. 846.) The Supreme Court began its analysis in Samson by observing: "'Under our general Fourth Amendment approach' we 'examine the totality of the circumstances' to determine whether a search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Knights (2001) 534 U.S. 112, 118. Whether a search is reasonable 'is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.' Id., at pp. 118-119." (Samson, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 848.) The United Supreme Court recognized that "parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is to imprisonment." (Samson, supra, 547 U.S. at p. 850.)