Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Building Inspections Administrative Probable Cause Standard Warrant Requirement |
Except in the case of emergency or consent, a warrant is required to enter a residential or commercial building for the purpose of conducting administrative health and safety inspections therein. However, such warrant is not based on probable cause to believe there is criminal activity underfoot. Camara v. Municipal Court.
[In Camara, the Supreme Court developed a special probable cause standard to apply in administrative search cases. In such cases, probable cause exists to issue a warrant to inspect premises for administrative code violations as long as there are “reasonable legislative or administrative standards” for conducting the inspection. Administrative probable cause does not require individualized suspicion of wrongdoing and may be founded on the basis of general factors such as: •the passage of time since the last inspection. •the nature of the building in question. •the condition of the entire area to be searched. |
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Exception to Adminstrative Warrant Requirement |
In limited circumstances, warrantless, non-exigent, nonconsensual administrative inspections of commercial premises are constitutional. A “closely regulated” business may be inspected without a warrant if three conditions are met:
(1) the administrative regulatory scheme must advance a “substantial interest,” such as to protect the health and safety of workers; (2) warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme, i.e., if there is a significant possibility that the subject of the search could conceal violations without the surprise element that the warrantless search would allow; (3) the ordinance or statute that permits warrantless inspections must, by its terms, provide an adequate substitute for the warrant, such as rules that limit the discretion of the inspectors, regarding the time, place, and scope of the search. New York v. Burger. |
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Border Patrol Searches At the Border |
Routine border searches, without a warrant and in the absence of individualized suspicion of criminal conduct, are deemed to be reasonable. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). Travelers may be detained at an international border or its “functional equivalent” (e.g., an airport where an international flight arrives) for a brief search of their person and belongings. Furthermore, a person lawfully stopped at a border may be detained beyond the scope of a routine customs search if agents have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Border Patrol Searches Near the Border |
The reasonableness of searches and seizures conducted near but not at the actual border depends in part on whether they take place at a fixed checkpoint or as the result of a “roving” border patrol.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Fixed Interior Checkpoints |
Vehicles may be stopped and their occupants briefly detained for questioning at fixed checkpoints, without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. The Court distinguished fixed checkpoints from roving border patrols on two grounds:
(1) the lesser intrusion resulting from a fixed checkpoint than random stops on the highway; and (2) the lesser discretion afforded officers maintaining the fixed checkpoints than the roving patrols. |
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Sobriety Checkpoints |
A highway sobriety checkpoint at which drivers were briefly detained (an average of 25 seconds) to search for signs of intoxication was upheld despite the lack of individualized suspicion of driving under the influence. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. The interest in eradicating drunk driving was found to outweigh the “slight” intrusion on drivers.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Drug Interdiction Checkpoints |
A highway checkpoint established for the purpose of detecting possession and/or use of illegal drugs has bee held to violate the Fourth Amendment. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond. As opposed to border and sobriety checkpoints, which are “designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety,” the drug interdiction checkpoint was aimed at detecting evidence of ordinary criminal activity not related to the checkpoint. Thus, when non-specific crime control is its aim, a checkpoint must be based on individualized reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches In General |
The “special needs” doctrine is another exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Special needs cases generally arise from searches by government actors other than police officers, such as school officials, public employers, and probation officers.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
When does the Special Needs Doctrine Apply? |
The doctrine applies when the government can demonstrate that:
(1)it is impracticable to obtain a warrant; (2)the governmental interest outweighs the intrusion; (3)the immediate objective of the search is one other than to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes, even if the ultimate goal is non-criminal in nature. |
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches of Personal Property and Premises Public School Students |
While the Supreme Court has recognized that public school students retain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the private property they bring to school, it has held that neither the warrant requirement nor the traditional doctrine of probable cause applies to public school searches. New Jersey v. T.L.O.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches of Personal Property and Premises Public School Students When may teachers or administrators search without a warrant? |
Public school teachers and administrators may search students without a warrant if two conditions are met:
(1) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or a school rule; and (2) the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the student’s age and sex and the nature of the suspected violation. |
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches of Personal Property and Premises Public Employees |
A public employer may search the office, including the desk and file cabinets, of an employee suspected of employment infractions, without a warrant or probable cause under the special needs exception. O’Connor v. Ortega.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches of Personal Property and Premises Public Employees When may a public employer conduct a search? |
For a search to be reasonable, the employer must have “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is necessary for a non-investigatory work-related purpose.”
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches of Personal Property and Premises Probationers |
The Court has approved a warrantless, non-exigent search by a probation officer of the home of a probationer, based on “reasonable grounds” to believe contraband would be discovered there, pursuant to a state regulation authorizing such searches. Griffin v. Wisconsin.
|
|
|
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NON-INVESTIGATORY SEARCHES
Special Needs Searches of Personal Property and Premises Drug and Alcohol Testing Approved Testing |
In limited circumstances, drug and alcohol testing (by taking blood, urine, or breath samples) of public employees and public school students, in the absence of a search warrant and in the absence of individualized suspicion, may be constitutional.
|
|
|
Adminstrative and Non-Investigatory Searches
Drug and Alchohol Testing What are the genreral factors which render a drug/ alcohol testing program constitutionally reasonable? |
The following general factors tend to render a drug/alcohol testing program constitutionally reasonable:
(1) regardless of the ultimate goal of the testing, the immediate objective of the testing is not to generate evidence for criminal law enforcement purposes; (2) in an employment context, persons being tested are working in an already highly regulated job; in non-employment contexts, persons tested have a reduced expectation of privacy; (3) in the employment context, there is a significant relationship between the employee’s job responsibilities and the employer’s concern about drug or alcohol use; in non-employment contexts, there is a significant societal reason for identifying drug users or alcohol abusers; (4) procedures limit the risk of arbitrary application of the testing; (5) care is taken to protect the dignity of persons tested in the specimen-collection process; (6) a regime based on individualized suspicion would have been impracticable; (7) there exists empirical evidence of a substantial need for the random testing program in question. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association; National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (upholding drug and alcohol testing of public employees) and Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (authorizing random drug testing of public school students voluntarily participating in school athletics programs where there was considerable evidence of a serious drug problem in the school district). |
|
|
Adminstrative and Non-Investigatory Searches
Drug and Alchohol Testing Disapproved Testing |
Drug testing programs have been found not to pass the special needs test where:
(1) the testing was not in response to any suspicion of drug use by the target group, Chandler v. Miller (striking down Georgia’s requirement that various candidates for state office pass a drug test where there was no fear or suspicion of drug use by state officials). (2) the immediate objective of the drug testing was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes, even though the policy’s “ultimate purpose” was a beneficent one, Ferguson v. City of Charleston (invalidating procedures to identify and non-consensually test any maternity patient suspected of drug use who came to a public hospital, where the policy was aimed at prosecuting drug-abusing mothers and forcing them into drug treatment programs). |
|
|
If the "special needs" exception does not apply what happens?
|
In cases where the “special needs” exception does not apply, a valid search warrant is required in order to conduct the testing.
|
