Special needs exception
Special Needs Exception
The “special needs” exception is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general requirement that government searches be supported by a warrant and probable cause.[1] The exception applies when (1) the government conducts 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.[2]
The special needs doctrine originated in Justice Blackmun’s concurrence in New Jersey v. T.L.O., and since has been adopted by the Supreme Court in other Fourth Amendment cases.[3][4] The idea is that because these searches are serving some civil or administrative—rather than criminal—objective, the searches are not being conducted based on any individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.[5] Since the searches are not premised on individualized suspicion, it would not make sense to require probable cause and a warrant.[5] Instead, the government satisfies the dictates of the Fourth Amendment if its search program as a whole as reasonable.[2]
If the government’s search program is primarily aimed at criminal law enforcement, the special needs exception does not apply and courts will not proceed to the reasonableness inquiry.[6] For example, in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement was the primary purpose of highway drug interdiction checkpoints, and that the special needs exception thus did not apply.[6] Unlike in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, where the court upheld drunk-driving checkpoints as being primarily aimed at highway safety, the drug checkpoints in Edmond were primarily meant to catch drug offenders, and the highway was merely an opportune place to do so.[6][7] The Supreme Court has also emphasized that, because all law enforcement is aimed at some greater societal objective, the alleged special need must be the primary and direct purpose of the search program in order for the exception to apply.[3][8]
Beyond drunk-driving checkpoints, the Supreme Court has also applied the special needs exception to searches by officials in public schools, border patrol checkpoints, drug testing of student athletes, and administrative inspection schemes.[4][9][10][11]
References
- ^ Special Needs, Searches and Seizures Arrests and Confessions § 10:13 (2d ed.)
- ^ a b Allison F. Tilton, Expectation of Privacy? How the Circuits View Post-Conviction Extractions of DNA: An Examination of "Special Needs" and "General Balancing", 34 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 193 (2008)
- ^ a b Nerko, Charles (2008-11-01). "Assessing Fourth Amendment Challenges to DNA Extraction Statutes after Samson v. California". Rochester, NY.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ a b New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
- ^ a b Mebane, Christopher (2003-04-27). "Rediscovering the Foundation of the Special Needs Exception to the Fourth Amendment in Ferguson v. City of Charleston". Houston Law Review. 40 (1): 4872.
- ^ a b c City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
- ^ Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
- ^ Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001)
- ^ United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
- ^ Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
- ^ New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987).
 | This is a user sandbox of Special needs exception. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
This template should only be used in the user namespace.This template should only be used in the user namespace.