78:. There, the Court upheld warrantless work-related searches of government employees’ desks and offices. Such searches implicated “special needs” because they were motivated by “legitimate work-related reasons wholly unrelated to illegal conduct,” such as the need to access a file or report while an employee is away. Thus, the Court balanced the interests at hand, determined that a warrant or probable cause requirement would be impracticable, and upheld the warrantless searches.
65:
and a warrant to satisfy the Fourth
Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. However, Justice Blackmun furthered that courts are entitled to engage in their own balancing of interests in “exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” He explained that school searches—which were at issue in
100:
drunk-driving checkpoints because they were directly aimed at removing immediate roadway safety-threats. In contrast, the
Supreme Court invalidated vehicle checkpoints meant to interdict illegal drugs because those checkpoints were primarily aimed at catching drug offenders—a quintessential law-enforcement effort—rather than addressing some immediate safety concern.
69:— present such special needs because student behavior that threatens the educational environment or safety of teachers and students often requires an immediate response. Not only would an immediate response be impossible if teachers needed to get a warrant before searching, but also teachers are “ill-equipped” to make probable cause determinations.
113:
and (3) the nature and immediacy of the government concerns, and the efficacy of the program for addressing them. Because the reasonableness inquiry is a holistic balancing test, a search program may be consistent with the Fourth
Amendment even if it does not employ the least intrusive means that would serve the government’s needs.
160:
Under the special needs doctrine, the
Supreme Court has also upheld suspicionless drug tests of U.S. Customs Service employees seeking new positions, suspicionless drug and alcohol tests of railroad employees involved in prior accidents or safety violations, and warrantless work-related searches of
64:
concurrence. There, Justice
Blackmun explained that courts typically should not engage in a case-by-case balancing of Fourth Amendment interests. Rather, the framers already balanced public and private interests to determine that government searches presumptively must be supported by probable cause
112:
If a warrantless or suspicionless search program satisfies the threshold primary-purpose requirement, courts will then determine if the program is reasonable by balancing relevant interests. This analysis considers (1) the nature of the privacy interest, (2) the character of the privacy intrusion,
136:
In certain circumstances, the
Supreme Court has also upheld warrantless administrative searches, such as when inspecting premises to determine the cause of fire damage or compliance with housing codes. Such administrative searches are sometimes discussed as part of the special needs exception and
127:
Under the special needs doctrine, the
Supreme Court has upheld suspicionless drug tests of student athletes and student participants of other extracurricular activities. While “special needs inhere in the public school context,” this does not categorically exempt public schools searches from the
99:
must be “to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Because all law enforcement efforts are aimed at some greater societal objective, courts look to the search program’s direct and immediate—not ultimate—purpose. For example, the
Supreme Court upheld suspicionless
46:. The exception applies when (1) the government conducts programmatic searches that are primarily aimed at advancing some special need other than criminal law enforcement, and (2) the government’s search program is reasonable given the balance of public and private interests.
103:
To determine a search program’s primary purpose, courts consider all available evidence. Such evidence may include law enforcement officers’ level of involvement in the program and the focus of any relevant written policy.
145:
The
Supreme Court has upheld suspicionless sobriety checkpoints and border patrol checkpoints under the special needs exception. Notably, the Supreme Court did not uphold the drug-interdiction checkpoint in
81:
While the special needs doctrine was originally applied in the context of warrantless searches, it has since been used to uphold searches that are supported by no individualized suspicion whatsoever.
128:
warrant and probable cause requirement. Rather, courts still must engage in a case-by-case balancing of interests to determine whether a particular school search scheme is reasonable.
35:
476:
217:
148:
60:
74:
218:"Special Needs and Special Deference: Suspicionless Civil Searches in the Modern Regulatory State"
95:
The threshold requirement for applying the special needs exception is that the search program’s
72:
The
Supreme Court subsequently adopted Justice Blackmun’s “special needs” formulation in
55:
43:
39:
17:
470:
152:, because that checkpoint was primarily aimed at ordinary law enforcement.
375:
Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls
137:
sometimes discussed as a separate “administrative search” exception.
38:’s general requirement that government searches be supported by a
179:, Searches and Seizures Arrests and Confessions §10:13 (2d ed.)
54:
The special needs doctrine was first articulated by Justice
425:, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S. Ct. 2481, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1990)
377:, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002)
356:, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995)
341:, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S. Ct. 2481, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1990)
437:, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S. Ct. 3074, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976)
399:
Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cty. of San Francisco
329:, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001)
281:, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S. Ct. 1492, 94 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1987)
260:., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985)
461:, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989)
449:, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989)
401:, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967)
389:, 464 U.S. 287, 104 S. Ct. 641, 78 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1984)
312:, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000)
413:731, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011)
8:
206:, 68 Am. Jur. 2d Searches and Seizures §115
459:Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
161:government employees’ desks and offices.
477:United States Fourth Amendment case law
169:
423:Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz
339:Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz
108:Reasonableness: balancing of interests
370:
368:
366:
364:
362:
349:
347:
7:
322:
320:
318:
305:
303:
301:
299:
274:
272:
270:
268:
266:
253:
251:
249:
247:
245:
243:
199:
197:
293:, 430 F.3d 652, 661 (2d Cir. 2005)
118:Applications and related doctrines
50:Origin and history of the doctrine
25:
27:Exception to the Fourth Amendment
435:United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
354:Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton
447:Treasury Employees v. Von Raab
327:Ferguson v. City of Charleston
310:City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
149:City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
1:
411:Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S.
493:
222:Administrative Law Review
32:"special needs" exception
191:, 79 C.J.S. Searches §65
189:Special Needs Exception
132:Administrative searches
34:is an exception to the
216:Arcila, Fabio (2004).
204:Special Needs Doctrine
61:New Jersey v. T. L. O.
18:Special needs doctrine
387:Michigan v. Clifford
258:New Jersey v. T.L.O
141:Certain checkpoints
279:O'Connor v. Ortega
156:Other applications
75:O'Connor v. Ortega
291:Nicholas v. Goord
16:(Redirected from
484:
462:
456:
450:
444:
438:
432:
426:
420:
414:
408:
402:
396:
390:
384:
378:
372:
357:
351:
342:
336:
330:
324:
313:
307:
294:
288:
282:
276:
261:
255:
238:
237:
235:
233:
213:
207:
201:
192:
186:
180:
174:
36:Fourth Amendment
21:
492:
491:
487:
486:
485:
483:
482:
481:
467:
466:
465:
457:
453:
445:
441:
433:
429:
421:
417:
409:
405:
397:
393:
385:
381:
373:
360:
352:
345:
337:
333:
325:
316:
308:
297:
289:
285:
277:
264:
256:
241:
231:
229:
215:
214:
210:
202:
195:
187:
183:
175:
171:
167:
158:
143:
134:
125:
120:
114:
110:
97:primary purpose
93:
91:Primary purpose
88:
82:
52:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
490:
488:
480:
479:
469:
468:
464:
463:
451:
439:
427:
415:
403:
391:
379:
358:
343:
331:
314:
295:
283:
262:
239:
208:
193:
181:
168:
166:
163:
157:
154:
142:
139:
133:
130:
124:
123:Public schools
121:
119:
116:
109:
106:
92:
89:
87:
84:
51:
48:
44:probable cause
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
489:
478:
475:
474:
472:
460:
455:
452:
448:
443:
440:
436:
431:
428:
424:
419:
416:
412:
407:
404:
400:
395:
392:
388:
383:
380:
376:
371:
369:
367:
365:
363:
359:
355:
350:
348:
344:
340:
335:
332:
328:
323:
321:
319:
315:
311:
306:
304:
302:
300:
296:
292:
287:
284:
280:
275:
273:
271:
269:
267:
263:
259:
254:
252:
250:
248:
246:
244:
240:
227:
223:
219:
212:
209:
205:
200:
198:
194:
190:
185:
182:
178:
177:Special Needs
173:
170:
164:
162:
155:
153:
151:
150:
140:
138:
131:
129:
122:
117:
115:
107:
105:
101:
98:
90:
85:
83:
79:
77:
76:
70:
68:
63:
62:
57:
49:
47:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
458:
454:
446:
442:
434:
430:
422:
418:
410:
406:
398:
394:
386:
382:
374:
353:
338:
334:
326:
309:
290:
286:
278:
257:
230:. Retrieved
225:
221:
211:
203:
188:
184:
176:
172:
159:
147:
144:
135:
126:
111:
102:
96:
94:
80:
73:
71:
66:
59:
53:
31:
29:
232:17 November
165:References
471:Category
86:Elements
56:Blackmun
58:in his
40:warrant
228:: 1228
67:T.L.O.
234:2020
42:and
30:The
473::
361:^
346:^
317:^
298:^
265:^
242:^
226:56
224:.
220:.
196:^
236:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.