Did this Court's decision in Samson v. California overturn the 'stalking horse' doctrine?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has held that persons on parole have a “lesser” expectation of privacy than the general public, due to the “special needs” of the state in preventing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S. Ct. 3164, 97 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1987). After Griffin, most circuits recognized that despite these lesser expectation, a probation officer cannot be used as a “stalking horse” to allow police officers to conduct new criminal investigations. Did (as the Sixth Circuit found in this case) this Court’s decision in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 848, 126 S. Ct. 2198, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006) overturn the “stalking horse” doctrine? ii