Dixon

MEMORANDUM **

In an evidentiary hearing before the District Court, Petitioner Howard Dixon (“Dixon”) challenged the search of his vehicle by police officers conducted while he was on parole status as unsupported by reasonable suspicion, and thus sought to suppress the evidence obtained from that search. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001) (holding that “[w]hen an officer has reasonable suspicion that a probationer subject to a search condition is engaged in criminal activity,” a warrantless search does not violate the Fourth Amendment) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that the police were aware of Dixon’s parole status and that Dixon’s parole officer gave permission for the search. Dixon now seeks appellate review of the district court’s denial of his suppression motion, and of his resulting conviction and sentence.

A Supreme Court decision issued after Dixon’s appeal was filed controls our decision. In Samson v. California, — U.S. -, -, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 2196 , 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a suspicionless search of a known parolee, conducted under the authority of the same California statute that…