H. ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES (“SPECIAL NEEDS”)

3. Roadblocks

• 
  Held: Permanent immigration checkpoints on major U.S. highways less than 100 miles from Mexican border held to be valid. Balance tipped in favor of government’s interest in policing nation’s borders and the limited nature of the intrusion (brief stop).
  

• 
  Held: Discretionary, suspicion-less stop for spot check of a motorist’s license and vehicle registration held to be unconstitutional because of “unconstrained discretion” on the part of the officers as to who to stop (however, stopping all motorists would have been permissible given the state’s “vital interest” in ensuring only those qualified to drive are behind the wheel).
  

• 
  Held: Sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing the hazard posed by drunk drivers on highways held to be valid. Gravity of drunk driving problem and magnitude of the state’s interest in getting drunk drivers off the road weighed heavily in determination that the program was constitutional (also a minimal intrusion of 25 seconds). Also relevant that unlike the random stops in Prouse, all cars were stopped at the roadblock in Sitz. Suggests that stopping everyone is better than stopping only a few.
  

• 
  Facts: Police began to operate vehicle checkpoints to interdict unlawful drugs. At each location, the police had a number of predetermined stops, one officer advises driver being stopped for drug check, asks for license & registration, checks for signs of impairment; conducts open view examination of the vehicle, narcotics-detection dog walks around the outside of each stopped vehicle, each stop conducted in same manner until particularized suspicion develops. Each stop lasted around 5 minutes.
  
• 
  Held: Because the primary purpose of the checkpoints program was to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (i.e. narcotics), the program contravenes the 4th Amend. Also different to sobriety roadblocks (as in Sitz) which are important for keeping impaired drivers off the roads.
  

• 
  Facts: Unknown motorist did hit and run. One week later police set up a highway checkpoint to ask for information about the incident. D went through checkpoint and failed sobriety test.
  
• 
  Held: Primary purpose of checkpoint was to gather information about the hit and run – it was not ordinary crime enforcement. Accordingly, this case is distinguished from Edmond. Checkpoint held to be reasonable and thus constitutionally valid (minimal and brief intrusion upon liberty weighed against grave public concern in obtaining information in relation to a single and specific crime in which a person had died, i.e. not unknown crimes of a general sort, police looking for witnesses not suspects)
  

4. Customs and border protection

See Martinez-Fuerte above.

Montoya de Hernandez (1985) (p.613) (detention of suspected drug smuggler for 16 hours valid)

• 
  Facts: Customs officials had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant, who had traveled from Columbia, was smuggling contraband in her stomach. She refused to submit to an x-ray, so was detained for 16 hours while a warrant was obtained.
  
• 
  Held: Even though the length of detention was long, it was acceptable as the balance of interests “leans heavily” in favor of the government at an international border (charged with protecting national security, preventing harmful entrants from entering (carrying diseases or explosives). Accordingly, detention was reasonable and constitutionally permissible.
  

Flores-Montano (2004) (p.613) (border searches extend to disassembling vehicle fuel tank)

• 
  Held: Government’s general authority to conduct suspicion-less border inspections includes the authority to remove and disassemble a vehicle’s fuel tank (D had unsuccessfully argued that inspection of gas tank is not routine and should have been supported with RS).
  

5. Non-police searches

See T.L.O. above (search of student’s purse by vice-principal held to be valid).

Board of Education v. Earls (2002) (p.614) (drug testing at school held to be valid)

• 
  Held: Suspicion-less drug testing of students who wanted to participate in extracurricular activities held to be valid. Students’ privacy interest at school was limited, especially in light of voluntary choice to participate in extracurricular activities, the degree of intrusion caused by the collection of a urine sample was minimal, and that school’s interest in combatting drug problem was sufficiently great to justify the intrusion.
  

Safford v. Redding (2009) (p.615) (scope of search must be reasonable – strip search of 13 year old girl at school for pain killers held to be unreasonable)

• 
  Held: Unreasonable to strip search 13 year old to find contraband painkillers even though had reasonable suspicion that she was distributing them. SC considered the age and sex of the subject, intrusiveness of the threat, minimal threat that the drugs presented at the school.
  

Chandler (1997) (p.615) (drug testing of state candidates for office held to be invalid – not a special need)

• 
  Held: Drug testing program which required candidates for state office in Georgia to submit a urine sample was held to be invalid. Although program was relatively unintrusive (just supply a urine sample), the purported “special need” was not substantial enough to suppress 4^th Amend requirement of individualized suspicion. Nothing to suggest that drug use among state officials was actually a problem. Also, the candidates could schedule their own test dates (so could wait until they were clean). Program was more “symbolic than special” and therefore unreasonable and constitutionally invalid.
  

Camara (1967) (p.629) (administrative warrant necessary for fire inspections, although lower standard of PC than ordinary warrants)

• 
  Held: Overturned earlier decision of Frank which permitted a municipal inspector to perform a home inspection without a warrant. Instead, it was held that an “administrative warrant” was necessary for home inspections (where tenant refused inspector entry or there was some immediate need for entry), however, given that routine periodic inspection is the only way to achieve universal compliance with health and safety codes, a lower standard of PC was required to issue the warrant. SC redefined the PC needed for such an “administrative warrant”.
  

Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents
upload documents -> Torts Outline Daniel Ricks
upload documents -> Torts outline Functions of Tort Law
upload documents -> Constitutional Law (Yoshino, Fall 2009) Table of Contents
upload documents -> Arrest: (1) pc? (2) Warrant required?
upload documents -> Civil procedure outline
upload documents -> Criminal Procedure: Police Investigation
upload documents -> Regulation of Agricultural gmos in China
upload documents -> Rodriguez Con Law Outline Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation
upload documents -> Standing Justiciability (§ 501 Legal/beneficial owner of exclusive right? “Arising under” jx?) 46 Statute of Limitations Run? 46 Is Π an Author? 14 Is this a Work of Joint Authorship? 14 Is it a Work for Hire?
upload documents -> Fed Courts Outline: 26 Pages

Download 464.2 Kb.

Share with your friends: