The Reasonableness Model - Special Needs

Question 1

Types of Special Needs We Covered

Answer 1

1) Roadblocks
2) Non-police Searches
3) Routine DNA Collections

Question 2

The Standard for Roadblock Stops

Answer 2

Safety + regularized procedures

Question 3

What is allowed for Roadblocks?

Answer 3

-Drunk driving stops

Question 4

What kind of Roadblock Stops are not ok?

Answer 4

1) Drug Stops -because Safety is not the primary concern
2) Investigations (like the hit and run case - police were seeking information, those stopped were not the Targets of an Investigation)
3) Stops selected at police discretion

Question 5

Roadblocks: Manner in which they should be conducted

Answer 5

-You can survive a checkpoint case if you can develop a system to take the discretion away from the officers

Question 6

2 Step Analysis for Special Needs Cases:

Answer 6

i. Step 1
a) Has govt articulated a special need beyond traditional law enforcement?
ii. Step 2
a) Balancing interests

Question 7

What Interests must be balanced in Special Needs Cases?

Answer 7

i) How important is govt interest and public interest
ii) Effectiveness/fit
iii) Degree of individual interests

Question 8

Like in TLO, can a school principal search a Student’s bag for drugs?

Answer 8

“[S]chool officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.”

Question 9

School Officials Searching Take-Away

Answer 9

§ Not law enforcement searching

§ Lower expectation of privacy In schools

Question 10

What kind of School official Searches go too far?

Answer 10

Strip Searches
- “search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be “reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.”

Question 11

Can students be drug tested?

Answer 11

§ Can drug test students that voluntarily join extracurricular competitive activities

Question 12

Can a State have a Statute that makes drug tests mandatory for those seeking public office?

Answer 12

No
- “Special need for drug testing must be substantial-important enough to override the individual’s acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment’s normal requirement of individualized suspicion.”

Question 13

Where are we going to draw the line for Special Needs Searches?

Answer 13

A policy that permits searches where the purpose served is “ultimately indistinguishable form the general interest in crime control” does not comport with the Fourth Amendment.

-Pay attention to purpose and law enforcement involvement in special needs

Question 14

Like in Ferguson Case, a state hospital’s performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient’s criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes is…

Answer 14

Unreasonable if the patient has not consented to the search

Question 15

Government Reasons for DNA Collection

Answer 15

One. ID arrestee
Two. Figure out criminal history
Three. Safety
Four. Figure out bail
Five. Free wrongly convicted

Question 16

Limits to DNA Collection

Answer 16

i. They can only do swabbing after Gerstein hearing

ii. Serious arrestees are the only ones where this type of testing is permitted

Question 17

On Exam how do we analyze DNA collection?

Answer 17

Skip government interest and go straight to balancing

Question 18

DNA Swabbing Case, King, holding:

Answer 18

When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold a suspect for a serious offense and bring him 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.

Question 19

Balancing of Interests for Cheek Swabbing for DNA in King

Answer 19

“In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent’s expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure.