Chapter 7
Inspections and Regulatory Searches
Introduction










administrative searches
“special needs” searches
primarily are carried out by public agencies that are not part of
the police
they are not aimed at investigating a specific crime
burden of proof
whether individuals and businesses are following local
ordinances
violation of the law typically results in a civil fine
do not serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement
are not undertaken to investigate a crime or to gather evidence
of a crime
U.S. Supreme Court: the government interest in conducting
these searches outweighs the resulting intrusion on individual
rights
Administrative Inspections





undertaken to insure that individuals and businesses
are conforming to a broad range of agency regulations
violation may result in both a civil fine and a criminal
conviction
criminal liability also may result when the
administrative violation violates a separate criminal
statute
Camara v. Municipal Court: administrative
inspections (without a warrant) for housing code
violations are entirely reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment
administrative warrants can be based on “modified
probable cause”
Admin. Insp. (cont.)




“area warrants” may authorize blanket actions,
such as the search of every building of a
particular age or design
See v. City of Seattle: to conduct forced
inspections, the inspector is required to
demonstrate only that the business is the type of
structure that is subject to inspection
New York v. Burger: closely regulated business
exception
evidence of a crime that is discovered in plain
view during an administrative search may be
seized by the police
Legal Equation
Special-Needs Searches


intended to promote the safety and
welfare of individuals and of the public
two-step analysis


to establish that the search is directed at a
special need “beyond the special needs of law
enforcement”
evaluate the reasonableness of the search
Legal Equation
International Borders




borders exception
Almedia-Sanchez v. United States
routine border searches
nonroutine border searches
Legal Equation
Motor Vehicle Checkpoints





Delaware v. Prouse: police may not pull motor
vehicles over to “spot check” for drivers’ licenses and
registration without reasonable suspicion
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte: police are allowed
to set up immigration checkpoints
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz: sobriety
checkpoints, suspicionless checkpoint program is
reasonably effective
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond: checkpoints whose
primary purpose is the detection of narcotics are
unconstitutional
emphasis on public safety
Legal Equation
Airport Screening




special need to subject individuals to both a preboarding
“walk-through screening” and a handheld magnometer
“wanding” without reasonable suspicion
special need to x-ray and to inspect carry-on and checked
baggage for weapons and explosives
judges have affirmed the right of airport personnel to
conduct even more intrusive searches where there is an
indication that a passenger may be in possession of a
weapon or explosive
based on the vital interest in preventing airborne
terrorism and in providing for the safety and security of
the public
Workplace Drug Testing


concern over the sobriety of individuals working in
the transportation industry whose job performance
may threaten the safety of the public
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association




blood, breath, and urine tests constitute Fourth Amendment
searches
they do invade individuals privacy but this invasion is
outweighed by the government interest in safety
no search warrant required
only suspicionless testing under specific circumstances is
allowed
Searches in High Schools





in loco parentis
students are entitled to constitutional rights
and protections
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District
Morse v. Frederick
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Drug Testing in High Schools

Vernonia School District 473 v. Acton






the legitimate governmental interest in carrying out drug
tests outweighed the modest intrusion on the diminished
privacy interests of students
schools have a duty to protect and to educate children
students have a diminished expectation of privacy, and
athletes have even less of an expectation of privacy than the
average student
drug tests are conducted in a relatively unintrusive fashion
teachers are not trained to make reasonable-suspicion
determinations of drug use
Board of Education of Independent School District No.
93 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls: court upheld drug tests
for athletes
Probation and Parole

Griffin v. Wisconsin



probation officers can search the home of a
probationer if there are “reasonable grounds” to
believe that contraband or any other item that a
probationer is prohibited from possessing is present
a probationer remains in legal custody of the state and
typically is required to report to a probation officer
and satisfy the officer that he or she is satisfying
various conditions
probationers and parolees enjoy only a “conditional
liberty properly dependent on observance of special
[probation] restrictions”
Probation and Parole (cont.)

United States v. Knights



searches of probationers’ homes have to be
immediately and regularly conducted
“when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a
probationer subject to a search condition is engaged in
criminal activity, there is enough likelihood that
criminal conduct is occurring that an intrusion on the
probationer’s significantly diminished privacy
interests is reasonable”
this judgment was based on “ordinary Fourth
Amendment analysis” and was not a “special needs”
or “administrative” search case
Correctional Institutions

Hudson v. Palmer


prisoners “are not beyond the reach of the Constitution” and
retain those rights that are not “fundamentally inconsistent
with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives
of incarceration”
a right to privacy is “fundamentally incompatible with the
close and continual surveillance of inmates and their cells
required to ensure institutional security and internal order”
Correctional Institutions (cont.)

Bell v. Wolfish


the U.S. Supreme Court approved visual cavity inspections
in those instances in which a pretrial detainee or inmate
returned to his or her cell block following a contact visit
with an individual from outside the institution
these visual cavity searches are reasonable because the
need to deter the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and other
prohibited items outweighed the intrusion into individual’s
privacy interests