the parole search was not based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the jury was properly instructed to examine the motives and intent of [the] Officers .. .to insure that, at the very least, the suspicionless search was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.”). As such, this is yet another basis for which the Court cannot grant Defendants summary judgment. As to qualified immunity, Plaintiffs argue “[a] search performed to harass is unconstitutional and no reasonable officer could have believed otherwise in November 2014.” Pis.’ Opp’n at 12. In doing so, they cite both the Supreme Court’s opinion in Samson v. California, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. King, both of which condemn harassing searches. Id.; see Samson 547 U.S. at 856, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (<HOLDING>); King, 736 F.3d at 810 (probation may not be
holding that under the fourth amendment a party may challenge both the constitutionality of the act permitting warrantless searches as well as the conduct of the government officials in a particular case holding that fourth amendment applicable in administrative searches for safety inspections holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells recognizing tedder as a significant procedural safeguard recognizing californias prohibition on harassing searches as a procedural safeguard under the fourth amendment