Describe three significant court cases that have had an impact on the practice o

Samson v. California (2006) Police officers may conduct a warrantless search of a person who is subject to a parole search condition, even when there is no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and even when the sole reason for the search is that the person is on parole.
U.S. v. Knights (2001)  the warrantless search authority normally reserved for probation and parole officers extends to police officers when supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by the conditions of probation.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott (1998) The exclusionary rule does not apply to searches by parole officers, even where such searches yield evidence of parole violations. Griffin n v. Wisconsin (1987) Probation officers may conduct searches of a probationer’s residence without the need for a search warrant or probable cause.
Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) A probationer’s incriminating statements to a probation officer may be used as evidence against him or her if the probationer does not specifically claim a right against self-incrimination.
Bearden v. Georgia (1983) Probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay a fine and make restitution if it can’t be shown that the defendant was responsible for the failure. Moreover, if a defendant lacks the capacity to pay a fine or make restitution, then the hearing authority must consider any viable alternatives to incarceration before imposing a prison sentence.
Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates (1979) Parole boards do not have to specify the evidence or reasoning used in deciding to deny parole.
Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) The safeguards identified in Morrissey v. Brewer were extended to probationers.
Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) Procedural safeguards are necessary in revocation hearings involving parolees. They include (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him or her; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement.
Mempa v. Rhay (1967) Both notice and a hearing are required before probation revocation, and the probationer should have the opportunity for representation by counsel before a deferred prison sentence is imposed.