Warrant Exception for Special Needs

Question 1

What are special needs?

Answer 1

These are needs outside of criminal law enforcement. If the police need to conduct a search or seizure for a need outside of or in addition to criminal law enforcement, the search is allowed if it is reasonable (based on a balancing of government interests and individual interests)

Some examples include: administrative law enforcement, enforcement of school policy, drug testing, inventory searches etc.

Note: if the only purpose of the search is criminal law enforcement, then the police need probable cause/a warrant.

Question 2

How do you determine if a special needs search is constitutional?

Answer 2

1. You ask whether there is a special need: does the search/seizure serve a purpose outside of or in addition to criminal law enforcement (i.e. criminal law enforcement cannot be the only purpose).
2. You ask whether the government’s actions here are reasonable: to determine this, you use a reasonableness balancing test, weighing the interests of the government vs. the interests of the individual.

Question 3

Camara v. Municipal Court (SCOTUS 1967)

Answer 3

This case held that warrants are required for administrative searches of homes. However, the standard for obtaining a warrant is not probable cause. Most times it’s compliance with a reasonable administrative inspection scheme.

Question 4

See v. City of Seattle (SCOTUS 1967)

Answer 4

This case applied Camara to administrative searches of businesses that are not closely regulated. It held that warrants are required for administrative searches of businesses. Warrants do not need to be supported by probable cause of an administrative violation. Most times they are granted based on compliance with a reasonable administrative scheme.

Question 5

New York v. Burger (SCOTUS 1987)

Answer 5

This case held that the police do not need a warrant to conduct an inspection/search of closely/pervasively regulated businesses. The search only needs to be reasonable (balancing government interests v. individual interests).

The police do not need a warrant and they do not need probable cause. This is because closely-regulated businesses have a decreased expectation of privacy.

Here the business (a junkyard) was pervasively regulated because the business had to have a license and registration number, keep a police book, and there were civil and criminal penalties for failing to do this.

And, the search was reasonable.

Facts: the police approached Burger’s junkyard. They asked for his police book, which he is required to have by law. He does not have one, so the officers conducted an inspection. They found stolen property.

Question 6

How do you determine whether an administrative search is reasonable?

Answer 6

The following test balances government and individual interests:
1. Assess whether there is a need for regulation outside of criminal law enforcement
2. Assess whether the regulation serves that interest
3. Assess whether the regulation provides an adequate substitute for a warrant (i.e. think notice!! Is there a statute that puts businesses on notice that they may be regularly subject to this type of inspection, pointing out the scope of the search).

Question 7

What is the impact of the fact that it’s the police who are conducting the administrative search?

Answer 7

In Burger the court held that the fact that the police are conducting an administrative search does not automatically make this criminal law enforcement. Police can serve community care taking functions.

Question 8

Are hotels considered a closely regulated business?

Answer 8

No, according to Patel these are not considered a closely regulated business.

Question 9

City of Los Angeles v. Patel (SCOTUS 2015)

Answer 9

This case held that hotels are not closely regulated businesses. The reasoning here was that, despite the number of regulations they had to follow, hotels were not on par with other industries that have be historically found to be pervasively regulated (i.e. liquor sales, guns sales, mining, junkyards). Unlike these businesses, hotels do not pose a risk to public safety.

Question 10

How do you determine whether a business is pervasively regulated ?

Answer 10

Under Burger you need only look at the number of regulations.
Under Patel you ask whether the business is similar to those that have been found to be pervasively regulated in the past (i.e. guns, alcohol, mining, junkyards), and assess whether it inherently poses a risk to public safety

Question 11

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives (SCOTUS 1989)

Answer 11

This case held that drug testing of RR employees involved in train accidents after the accident constituted a special needs search that did not require a warrant. Failing to pass the test resulted in disciplinary action.

1. Special need: investigate crashes, prevent and detect employee drug use; no criminal consequences.
2. Reasonableness: government interest in safety and regulating RR employee conduct > individual privacy interest.

Note: here the Court’s assessment did not account for whether this policy actually deterred drug use.

Question 12

Vernonia School District v. Action (SCOTUS 1995)

Answer 12

This case held that suspicionless drug testing of student athletes constituted a special needs search that did not require a warrant.

1. Special need: address drug use problem in school, student athletes are leaders that can influence the behavior of other students.
2. Reasonableness: student athletes have a lower expectation of privacy (the travel together, share locker rooms, shower…etc)

Question 13

Board of Independent School District v. Earles (SCOTUS 2002)

Answer 13

This case extended Vernonia to all students who participate in extracurriculars. Suspicionless drug testing of student who participate in extracurriculars constituted a special needs search that did not require a warrant.

1. Special need: address drug use, no criminal consequences, could only get kicked out of extracurriculars or suspended if there are too many positive tests.
2. Reasonableness: these students have a diminished expectation of privacy (like athletes), their participation in extra curriculars is voluntary (Ginsberg questions this), students get to urinate behind a closed door.

Note: Thomas’ majority opinion thought that targetted individualized searches could result in unfair targetting of unpopular groups.

Question 14

Chandler v. Miller (SCOTUS 1997)

Answer 14

This case held that suspicionless drug testing of GA politicians running for elected office was unconstitutuional because there was not a SUBSTANTIAL special need. The fact that there is not a demonstrated history of drug use among people running for elected office in GA here undermines the idea that there is a substantial special need.

Question 15

Ferguson v. City of Charleston (SCOTUS 2001)

Answer 15

This case held that drug testing of pregnant mothers suspected of cocaine use was not a constitutional special needs test.

Court mainly focused on the lack of special need–although the mothers were offered counseling and treatment, their test could be reported to law enforcement and they could be charged with unlawful possession and distribution of cocaine to a minor. Therefore, the alleged special need was not related to the policy enforcement.

Question 16

Incarcerated people, jails, and special needs

Answer 16

Forcing strip searches, body cavity searches, delousing agent showers etc. are constitutional special needs.

Special need: running an institution, ensuring the health and safety of people inside the institution.

Reasonableness: diminished expectation of privacy due to regulated environment.

Question 17

Maryland v. King (SCOTUS 2013)

Answer 17

This case held that a Maryland law permitting warrantless DNA swabbing of someone’s mouth upon booking them at the jail is justified as a special needs search.

Here the special need is identification and knowing who you have in custody (in addition to law enforcement w/ people’s DNA going into a database).

This is even though there are other means of identification, three days passed before they actually did the DNA test (indicating that identification was not urgent).

Question 18

What is the test for whether check point/road block stops are constitutional?

Answer 18

Some cases use the two step special needs analysis to make this assessment.

Other cases just use the reasonableness requirement to make this assessment (Martinez-Fuerte, Sitz)

Question 19

Can an officer stop a driver and detain them to check their license without reasonable suspicion?

Answer 19

No, unless there is a constitutional special needs checkpoint/road stop.

Question 20

U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (SCOTUS 1976)

Answer 20

This case held that suspicionless fixed/permanent checkpoint stops by the border are constitutional under a reasonableness analysis.

The government interest in investigating people who enter the U.S. and making sure they are documented outweighs the individual interest in privacy. The permanence of the checkpoint increases the reasonableness (the police aren’t determining where the checkpoint is).

Question 21

What increases the reasonableness of a checkpoint?

Answer 21

Permanance: no surprise to drivers, limits officer discretion, chosen by department leader to maximize effectiveness.

All drivers/people are stopped, limits discretion.

The hit rate does not matter, checkpoints are forward looking, for deterrence (Williams’ 1st Cir) (Sitz, Edmond)

Question 22

Michigan Police Department v. Sitz (SCOTUS 1990)

Answer 22

This case upheld suspicionless stops at sobriety checkpoints. This was reasonable because all drivers were stopped.

*Facts: Michigan had a program that allowed temporary sobriety checkpoints at which drivers were briefly stopped, examined for signs of intoxication and, if they seemed intoxicated, were directed to an area where the police conducted a license and registration check as well as a sobriety test. The program allowed checkpoints to be erected based on:
1. The safety of the location
2. Convenience to the driver
3. Availability of space to pull the car over for further questioning/discussion if necessary.
Throughout the duration of the program, only one stop was erected, there were 126 stops and only one arrest for driving while intoxicated.**

Question 23

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (SCOTUS 2000)

Answer 23

This case used a special needs analysis to find that a suspicionless drug trafficking checkpoint/stop was unconstitutional because the purpose was criminal law enforcement.

Facts: If you are stopped at a checkpoint: an officer would approach the car, advise the driver that they are being briefly stopped at this drug checkpoint, and ask for license and registration. The officer was to look for signs of intoxication, conduct an open view inspection of the car from the outside, and have a narc dog sniff around the car. The officers could only proceed in conducting a search if there was consent, or if there was particularized suspicion. The stop of a car diverted for further inquiry was typically about 2-3 minutes longer than the stop of a non-diverted car.

Question 24

Are suspicionless inventory searches justified by special needs?

Answer 24

Yes. Even though conducted by the police, they are not for criminal law enforcement purposes. Rather, they are conducted in the police’s community care taking capacity.

Note: the caretaking function does not permit the police to enter/search someone’s home i.e. when they are suicidal, searching for guns.

Note: inventory searches of closed compartments outside of cars upon arrest (i.e. like someone’s bag) are not justified.

Question 25

Cady v. Dombrowski (SCOTUS 1973)

Answer 25

This case held that suspicionless inventory searches are constitutional because they are part of the police’s community care taking functions.

Question 26

South Dakota v. Opperman (SCOTUS 1976)

Answer 26

This case held that suspicionless inventory searches that are conducted pursuant to standard police procedure are constitutional.

The procedure piece is significant in limiting the police discretion and ensuring that the search is reasonable.

The fact that these searches are conducted based on the officers’ community care taking function is also important to the special needs analysis:
* Protects police from property claims
* Protects property from owner
* Protects public from dangerous items that may be kept in the car.

Question 27

Are suspicionless searches on the border justified by special needs?

Answer 27

Yes. These are supported by special needs because the government has an interest in: collecting duties; preventing disease from entering the country; preventing contraband from entering the country.

Question 28

United States v. Flores-Montano (SCOTUS 2004)

Answer 28

This case held that suspicionless searches of people’s cars at the border are justified by special needs.

The government interest in preventing contraband/human trafficking is high at the border. Individuals’ interest in the privacy of their cars is low.

Question 29

United States v. Ramsey (SCOTUS 1977)

Answer 29

This case held that routine border searches are reasonable even if there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. This is because the government interest in what enters the country outweighs people’s minimal expectation of privacy at the border.

If a border search is routine, it is reasonable.
If a border search is not routine, it is not reasonable.

Facts: here the police opened letters entering the U.S. given a recent trend of sending drugs via mail.

Question 30

What are examples of routine border searches?

Answer 30

Looking carefully through someone’s luggage
Pulling a car over a the border and carefully searching the passenger compartment
Making someone get off a bus a the border and subjecting them to a dog sniff.
Harming property (i.e. drilling a hole in a yacht)

Question 31

What are examples of non-routine border searches?

Answer 31

Strip searches
Cavity searches

Question 32

United States v. Montoya Hernandez

Answer 32

This case held that if there is reasonable suspicion, a person can be subjected to a non-routine search at the border.

Court held that the defendant here elongated the Terry stop based on her sheer will to not go to the bathroom, that this was not the police officers’ fault.