This order is the result of a motion to extend a previously issued TRO and that previously issued TRO was based upon a settlement agreement to which the city agreed.

 In the earlier agreement, LA AGREED not to conduct Terry stops without reasonable suspicion, presumably because it did not wish to litigae the allegation that it was emplying bogus claims of parole/probation searches as a pretext to intimidate and harass residents of "skid row."

   The plaintiff argued that the extension was warranted because LAPD was continuing to search people using the probation/parole inquiry as a pretext without any prior knowledge the people being subjected were even on prpbation or parole (and this when it had agreed not to search people on probation or parole without reasonable suspicion).

   It was furtheer alleged that LAPd would follow through with these searches even when people expressly denied they were on probation and parole (and at least in some cases when that was true).

  Finally you are correct about Samson holding it is lawful to conduct "suscpicionless searches of people on probation or parole (and i believe that is the rule in every jurisdiction) but here we have an order resulting from a settlement to which the city agreed forbidding that practice AND it is still generally held that while a suspicionless search of a probationer or parolee is lawful that the police have to have a basis for believing the person is on probation or parole and that was absent in some instances here.

  Finally, to those who consider it significant, Judge Pregerson is considered one of the very most liberal U.S. District Court judges in the country.

  People who rob or beat other people should be prosecuted for that. Even people who commit lesser crimes are subject to legitimate prosecution. We should have workable mechanisms that both provide due process and allow for civil commitment of people who can be shown to be imminent dangers to themselves or others.

  The problem is all of that is very hard and would take more time, moneey, effort and expertise than society is willing to devote. . It's simply easier and cheaper to hassle people who "look like" bad seeds.

   I wouldn't want to be a cop on that beat either. Often, they are placed in impossible situations and asked to achieve the unattainable. Moreover, as the ones with "direct" contact with the street the cops on the beat often bear the brunt of sanctions when bad things happen and one could argue that it is entirely predictable that "bad things" will be done by some cops if you put them in such situations because cops are human beings.

  This decision is a little strange. The judge says it goes no further than requiring the cops to obey constitutional commands and at one point seems to state that even though the original agreement went further than that-- "suspicionless searches" of people on P/P are consitutional-- that it really didn't because of other language to the effect that if the SCOTUs or 9th cir. law on search and seizure were to be modified the agreement would automatically be modified by operation of law to incorporate that modification.

  I couldn't really follow him there because the agreement to cease "suspicionless searches" was not co-extensive with the law existing at the time of the agreement and the agreed order did not read to me as though it could be read that any provisions limiting the police to a greater extent than the current constitutional interpretations of courts  were construed to be  only enforceable to the extent thety did not differ from the sesrch and seizure precedents. it seemd to me it was a volunatary agreement by the city to do less than the constitution allows.

  the "constittional holding of Pregerson's decision is that search and seizures can be unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional even if otherwise constitutional if the primary intent  is to harass and intimidate.

   So stated, that's a good principle but it is going to be very difficult to litigate, apply  and enforce because of the inherent subjectivity required ina ny analysis. (That's why courts frequently like "bright line" rules as were discussed in the other thread about whether a vehicle passenger is seized. they are simply easier to administer.