is thus a more stringent test, adding a threshold step to the totality-of-the-circumstances test and requiring the court to first identify some “special need beyond the normal need for law enforcement” before undertaking a balancing of interests. Amerson, 483 F.3d at 79 n. 6. In the wake of the Samson ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld a suspi-cionless search of a parolee without bothering to identify any special need, courts have viewed Samson as affirmatively signaling that the totality-of-the-cireum-stances test is the appropriate test for assessing the reasonableness of suspicion-less DNA collection requirements as applied to parolees and supervised releasees. Kriesel, 508 F.3d at 946-47; Weikert, 504 F.3d at 9; Banks, 490 F.3d at 1185. But see Amerson, 483 F.3d at 78-79 (<HOLDING>); Hook, 471 F.3d at 772-73 (applying
holding that probationers who sign consenttosearch agreements have a  severely diminished expectation of privacy  in connection with their supervision by probation officers holding the specialneeds test remains the proper framework for analyzing the constitutionality of a dnaindexing statute when applied to probationers whose privacy interests are not as diminished as those of parolees holding parole officer could extract consent from parolees sister prior to parolees release holding requirement that a prisoner agree to search condition of parole is reasonable in light of the parolees significantly diminished privacy interests holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains