Special Needs Searches and Seizures Flashcards
Administrative Searches
Administrative searches are a category of searches conducted by government agencies for purposes other than law enforcement, such as to enforce regulations, ensure compliance with health and safety standards, or inspect premises for code violations. These searches are subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but they are subject to a different standard than traditional criminal searches due to their non-criminal nature.
3 Factor Test for Administrative Searches
- There must be a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made
- The warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme
- The statues inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of the application, must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant
The regulatory scheme must perform two functions of the warrant clause:
1. Advise the owner of the commercial premises that the search is being made pursuant to the law and has a defined scope
2. Limit discretion of the inspecting officers
NY v. Burger - Junkyards and Stolen cars
The Court upheld warrantless inspections of closely regulated industries, such as the automobile junkyard industry, provided that there is a substantial government interest, the warrantless inspection is necessary to further that interest, and the statute authorizing the search provides an adequate substitute for a warrant in terms of notifying the owner of the premises that the search is being conducted pursuant to the law.
City of LA v. Patel - Hotel Records on Inspection
Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reasoned that the ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment because it authorized a warrantless search of hotel records without any opportunity for pre-compliance review by a neutral decision-maker. The Court acknowledged that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating hotels and ensuring they do not facilitate criminal activity, but determined that this interest could be adequately protected without authorizing warrantless searches that lacked any opportunity for judicial review. General regulations are not sufficient to establish a pervasively and closely regulated industry
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of mandatory drug and alcohol testing for railway employees involved in train accidents or who violated certain safety rules. The Court held that these tests, even without individualized suspicion, were permissible under the Fourth Amendment because they served a compelling government interest in ensuring the safety of the public and railway employees. The Court reasoned that the government’s interest in preventing train accidents caused by drug or alcohol impairment outweighed the employees’ privacy interests in this context.
Board of Ed. v. Earls—Special Needs Test
The Supreme Court upheld a public school district’s policy of conducting random drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities, finding that the search was reasonable in light of the school’s interest in preventing drug use among students and the minimal intrusion on students’ privacy.
Special needs — is there an issue to which the government is responding + is the government response reasonable (the advancement of the government interest outweighs in the individual interests)
Chandler v. Miller
In contrast to Skinner, the Court struck down a Georgia law requiring candidates for certain state offices to undergo drug testing as a condition of being placed on the ballot. The Court held that this drug-testing requirement violated the Fourth Amendment because the government failed to show a special need that would justify the invasion of privacy. Unlike the safety concerns in Skinner, the Court found that the government’s generalized interest in deterring drug use by public officials was not a sufficient basis for the mandatory testing.
Ferguson v. City of Charleston
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed a policy by a public hospital and local police department to test pregnant women for drug use without their consent and to report positive results to law enforcement. The Court held that this policy violated the Fourth Amendment, as it constituted a warrantless search conducted without individualized suspicion. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the policy served a special need to protect the health of both the mother and the unborn child, emphasizing that the primary purpose of the policy was to obtain evidence of criminal conduct rather than to provide medical care.
Maryland v. King—DNA Testing - Law and Order SVU…gotcha!
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the DNA collection, concluding that it constituted a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned that the government’s interest in accurately identifying arrestees, solving past crimes, and exonerating the innocent outweighed the minimal intrusion on an individual’s privacy caused by a cheek swab. The Court emphasized that the DNA samples were taken from individuals who had been arrested for serious offenses, and that the samples were used only for identification purposes, not for general law enforcement investigations. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Delaware v. Prouse—Individual Stops Without Suspicion
The court held that an officer could not, in the absence of reasonable suspicion, stop and automobile and detain the driver in order to check their license and registration; The officer had made an ad hoc, suspicionless stop, and the court expresses concern over the unconstrained exercise of discretion
US v. Martinez-Fuerte—Permanent Checkpoints - Do you have any fruits or perishables?
The court invoked Terry principles and approved the suspicionless stops at permanent checkpoints removed from the border—suspicionless stops were necessary to implement the state interest in regulating the flow of undocumented individuals and noted that fixed checkpoint was minimally intrusive
Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz—Temporary DUI Checkpoints - Have you been drinking tonight?
Upheld suspicionless stops at temporary sobriety checkpoints—the program allowed the creation of set points in accordance with a list of consideration; The intrusiveness of a sobriety checkpoint was weighed in favor of the government interest as the individual privacy concern was extremely limited
The majority reasoned that a special need was not require to support reasonableness balancing for stops at fixed checkpoints; This was in line with Terry cases rather than the Special Needs
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond - General Law Enforcement Checkpoint
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the drug checkpoint, concluding that it was not justified by a special need beyond the general interest in crime control. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor emphasized that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, rather than to address a specific public safety concern (such as drunk driving or border control). The Court held that this general law enforcement purpose did not justify a search without individualized suspicion.
South Dakota v. Opperman—Inventory Searches
Supreme Court held that an inventory search of a vehicle that had been impounded for multiple parking violations was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the search served legitimate administrative purposes, such as protecting the owner’s property while it was in police custody and safeguarding the police from potential claims of lost or stolen property. However, the Court has emphasized that inventory searches must be conducted according to standardized procedures and must not be used as a pretext for a criminal investigation.
Three legitimate reasons for inventory search?
Warrant requirement is not necessary because?
Protection of the police department against false claims.
Protection of the property interest of the owner.
Protection of the police and public from dangerous items.
There is no special facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate to determine whether probable cause exists because inventory searches are are non-criminal in nature.
There is not danger of discretionary searches when conducted with standard procedures.
There is no danger of arbitrariness when all impounded cars are searched routinely.
