PER CURIAM:
Barry J. Portman, Federal Public Defender, Daniel P. Blank, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, for the appellant. Melinda Haag, United States Attorney, Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Division, Assistant United States Attorney, Suzanne B. Miles, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for the appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:10–cr–00455–WHA–1.
Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HARRY PREGERSON, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
We overrule Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2005), the precedent on which it relies, Moreno v. Baca, 400 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2005), and United States v. Harper, 928 F.2d 894 (9th Cir.1991), and later cases that rely on it, including United States v. Baker, 658 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2011), Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2009), and United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir.2007), to the extent they hold that “there is no constitutional difference between probation and parole for purposes of the fourth amendment.” Motley, 432 F.3d at 1083 n. 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). These cases conflict with the Supreme Court's holding that “parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S.Ct. 2193, 165 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006).
United States v. King, 672 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.2012), is vacated, and the case is referred to the original panel for disposition consistent with this opinion.
-------- Notes: