administrative searches + Inventories

Question 1

Does a routine administrative search require a prior judicial warrant?

Answer 1

In general, entry and search of private property without consent or a warrant is considered unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although a routine inspection does not present the same threat to privacy that an investigative search by police does, the protections of the Fourth Amendment are not limited to individuals suspected of crime. Further, violations of health and safety codes carry criminal penalties. Requiring a warrant protects an occupant from unauthorized searches without limiting the ability of government agencies to canvass a particular area.

Question 2

Is a warrant required to enter and search private commercial property?

Answer 2

Yes. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable whether the subject of the search is a private residence or private commercial property. The presumption of unreasonableness is rebuttable within the warrant framework, including by application of warrant exceptions, such as exigent circumstances. The warrant requirement covers both incursions by law enforcement and incursions by administrative inspections intended to ensure compliance with regulatory laws, such as fire and building codes.

Question 3

Under the Fourth Amendment, may a business operating in a closely regulated industry be subjected to warrantless administrative searches?

Answer 3

Yes. Although business owners do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that expectation is not as great as that of private homeowners. Business owners operating businesses in heavily regulated industries have an even lesser expectation of privacy than other business owners. As a result, the balancing of interests required by the Fourth Amendment is shifted in favor of the special need of the government to regulate some industries. Therefore, warrantless inspections of businesses operating in heavily regulated industries are permitted under the following three conditions. First, the inspection program must serve a substantial governmental interest.

Question 4

Does the warrantless search of hotel records for general inspection purposes fall under the administrative-search exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 4

No. The warrantless search of hotel records permitted by an ordinance does not fall within the administrative-search exception, because there is no opportunity for precompliance review and there is a criminal penalty for noncompliance.

Question 5

Does a government employer’s intrusion on an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy violate the Fourth Amendment if it was for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes and reasonable under the circumstances?

Answer 5

No. Typically, a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. One exception to this rule pertains to the special needs of a workplace. In O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987), this Court set out a two-step analysis for determining whether a government employer has violated its employee’s Fourth Amendment rights.

First, a court must examine the operational realities of the workplace to see whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Second, if the employee did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, a court must determine whether the government employer’s infringement of that expectation for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes was reasonable under the circumstances. The employer’s search is reasonable if it is justified at its inception and the measures used are reasonably related to the purpose of the search and not excessively intrusive under the circumstances.

Question 6

Under the Fourth Amendment, is a school official permitted to search a student if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will result in evidence of the student’s violation of law or school rules?

Answer 6

Yes. The standard of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, which depends on the context within which a search takes place. In the school setting, there is a substantial need for teachers and administrators to maintain order. A requirement to obtain a warrant before searching a student suspected of a crime or an infraction of school rules would unduly interfere with the school’s need for swift and informal disciplinary procedures. Additionally, the governmental interests in these types of cases, weighed against the private interests, justifies an exception to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause. Rather, a school official’s search of a student is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if the search is reasonable under all the circumstances.

Question 7

Under the Fourth Amendment, can a school official strip search a student without a specific suspicion that the student is hiding evidence in intimate places?

Answer 7

No. Under the Fourth Amendment, a school official cannot strip search a student without a specific suspicion that the student is hiding evidence in intimate places. Under New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), a school official’s warrantless search of a student must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search. The search cannot be excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.

Question 8

Do governmental regulations authorizing the collection of biological samples from public employees in the absence of suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment when special law enforcement needs render probable cause and warrant requirements impracticable?

Answer 8

No. As a general rule, a search is not reasonable unless conducted in accordance with a warrant issued upon a finding of probable cause. We have recognized that special needs arising under certain circumstances make it impractical to require a finding of probable cause and issuance of a warrant before subjecting an individual to a Fourth Amendment search.

Question 9

May a government employer’s warrantless and suspicionless drug testing of an employee be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 9

Yes. the warrant and probable-cause requirements may be dispensable if the government conducts drug testing due to special needs beyond ordinary law enforcement. When there is a special need, the government’s interest must be balanced against the individual’s privacy expectations.

Question 10

Is a suspicionless drug test of nominees seeking state office unlawful under the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 10

Yes. the special need for drug testing must be substantial and important enough to trump the individual’s privacy interests.

Question 11

Under the Fourth Amendment, may students participating in athletic programs be subjected to drug testing without a warrant or suspicion?

Answer 11

yes

Question 12

The special needs of public schools to manage and discipline students justify relaxing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Answer 12

yes. The special needs of public schools to manage and discipline students justify relaxing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 13

Under the Fourth Amendment, may a state hospital drug test pregnant women without probable cause or informed consent for law enforcement purposes?

Answer 13

No. A state hospital may not conduct drug screenings of pregnant women without probable cause or informed consent.

MUSC attempted to achieve its goal of protecting pregnant women and their children from drugs through standard law enforcement. Thus, the drug screenings in this case cannot be justified on the grounds of special needs.

(ferguson v city of charleston)

Question 14

Does a strip search in jail for those who commit minor offenses require reasonable suspicion?

Answer 14

No. Given the legitimate penological interests of correctional officers in conducting strip searches, this Court gives deference to the judgment of correctional officials. In order to overcome the deference granted to correctional officials, there must be substantial evidence that demonstrates their policies are unnecessary or unjustified as a solution to jail security.

Question 15

When officers make an arrest for a serious offense that is supported by probable cause and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, is taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA a legitimate police-booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 15

Yes. Even when a warrantless search is legal, the search still must be reasonable in its scope. To be reasonable, the warrantless search must further a legitimate government interest that outweighs the search’s intrusion upon the searched individual’s privacy. When officers make an arrest for a serious offense that is supported by probable cause and bring the suspect to the station to be detained, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is a legitimate and reasonable police-booking procedure under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 16

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, must the reasonableness of a warrantless seizure be weighed against the public interest the seizure serves?

Answer 16

Yes. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the reasonableness of a warrantless seizure must be weighed against the public interest it serves. Warrantless seizures infringe on a person’s privacy, expose the person to inconvenience, and may cause mental distress or other injury. These disadvantages must be balanced against the public benefit the seizure may provide.

Question 17

Do warrantless stops at permanent, internal Border Patrol checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 17

No. In determining whether a warrantless stop is unreasonable and therefore violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, the Court balances the public interests at stake with the significance of the intrusion on the individual’s privacy interests.

Question 18

Are temporary sobriety checkpoints reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 18

Yes. because the system advances the state’s interest in preventing drunk driving accidents and this state interest outweighs the intrusion upon motorists imposed by the checkpoints.

Brown v. Texas (1979) 3 Prong Test:

1. state’s interest in preventing drunk driving accidents — Drunk driving is a huge problem in the United States and the states have a strong interest in preventing them.
2. effectiveness of such checkpoints in achieving this goal — During the time the checkpoint was in operation, 1.6 percent of drivers were arrested for drunk driving. The national average is one percent of motorists stopped at checkpoints are arrested for driving drunk. Therefore, while another method may be proven more effective, law enforcement techniques are left to the police and not the courts. The checkpoint at issue is sufficiently effective and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
3. level of intrusion on an individual’s privacy caused by the checkpoint.

Question 19

Is a suspicionless roadside checkpoint established for the purpose of deterring general criminal activity unlawful under the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 19

Yes. A suspicionless roadside checkpoint established for the purpose of deterring general criminal activity is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. We proceed under the assumption that stopping a vehicle represents a seizure. We must determine whether such seizure is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Since its purpose is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the Indianapolis checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.

Question 20

Is a roadside vehicle checkpoint presumptively unlawful if the primary law-enforcement purpose of the stop is to ask vehicle occupants for information about crimes possibly committed by others?

Answer 20

No. In Edmond, this Court held that a roadside checkpoint established for the primary purpose of general crime control was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment, because vehicles were stopped and checked for evidence of criminal activity without individualized suspicion. Edmond did not concern the constitutionality of a purely information-seeking traffic stop. There is no reason why the Fourth Amendment should make presumptively unlawful a brief, information-seeking stop of a motorist. A motorist has a reduced expectation of privacy in his vehicle. And this Court has allowed vehicle stops without individualized suspicion if special law-enforcement concerns warrant it, such as stops to check the sobriety of motorists. For this type of information-seeking stop, the concept of individualized suspicion plays no role in the analysis. It is similar to police behavior in crowd control, for which the concept of individualized suspicion is irrelevant. Furthermore, these types of stops are very brief and are not intrusive or likely to cause anxiety, as they are not intended to elicit self-incriminating information.

Question 21

Is the warrantless search of a vehicle reasonable if the search is a standard police-department procedure performed for the purpose of protecting the safety of the public?

Answer 21

Yes. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires warrantless searches to be reasonable. There is no formula for determining reasonableness because the determination must be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has previously held that warrantless searches are reasonable if state law or police-department procedure require the search of a vehicle in police custody to safeguard the owner’s property or to protect the safety of the police as custodians of the vehicle.

Question 22

Can police enter a home without a warrant to prevent a potential in-home emergency?

Answer 22

No. Police can only enter a private home under limited circumstances, including (1) pursuant to a valid warrant, (2) with consent of the homeowner, and (3) if there are exigent circumstances requiring immediate emergency assistance to treat an injured occupant or prevent imminent injury. The potential for future injury is insufficient to trigger the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.

Question 23

Under the Fourth Amendment, may police perform an inventory search of the contents of a vehicle lawfully in police possession?

Answer 23

Yes. Vehicles are “effects” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, automobiles do not carry the same expectation of privacy as a home or office, because automobiles are subject to heavy governmental regulation and travel by car is inherently public.

Police as caretakers may legitimately take possession of an illegally parked vehicle and may inventory the contents of the vehicle once impounded. This

(1) protects the vehicle owner’s property,

(2) protects police against false claims of damage or loss of property, and

(3) protects police from harm. The probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment are inapplicable to noncriminal inventory searches of vehicles lawfully in police custody.

Question 24

Does an inventory search of personal effects during the booking of an arrested person violate the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 24

No. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit an inventory search of an arrested person’s effects during booking. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), makes clear that a warrant is not required for an inventory search. Thus, the issue is whether the search is reasonable. Reasonableness is assessed by balancing Lafayette’s privacy interests against the legitimate governmental goals advanced by the search. The reasons for performing an inventory search at booking are different than those justifying a search of a person or the area within the person’s control at the time of arrest. Inventory searches at the time of booking deter theft, protect police and jailors against false claims of loss or damage to property, reveal dangerous items, and sometimes help identify a suspect. As such, there is a substantial governmental interest in searching all of the personal effects of an arrested person, and reasonableness does not require that there be no “less intrusive” alternative to accomplish the same goals. Thus, police may perform an inventory search of an arrested person’s effects during booking as part of the standard intake procedure.