Fourth Amendment and the Body
Case Study #1: Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1988)
Facts:
In July 1983, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
implemented regulations requiring mandatory, warrantless,
blood and urine tests of employees involved in certain train
accidents. Other FRA rules allowed railroads to administer
breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain
safety rules. The rules appeared in response to growing
concern about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by
railroad employees. Reports showed that from 1972 to 1983,
"the nation's railroads experienced at least 21 significant train accidents involving alcohol or
drug use as a probable cause or contributing factor," and that these accidents "resulted in 25
fatalities, 61 non-fatal injuries, and property damage estimated at $19 million (approximately
$27 million in 1982 dollars)." The FRA further identified "an additional 17 fatalities to
operating employees working on or around rail rolling stock that involved alcohol or drugs as
a contributing factor." In addition, "industry participants . . . confirmed that alcohol and drug
use [did] occur on the railroads with unacceptable frequency," and available information from
all sources "suggest[ed] that the problem includ[ed] `pockets' of drinking and drug use
involving multiple crew members (before and during work), sporadic cases of individuals
reporting to work impaired, and repeated drinking and drug use by individual employees who
are chemically or psychologically dependent on those substances."
The Railway Labor Executives' Association, an umbrella group of railway trade unions, sued to
have the new regulations declared an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
Decision:
The Court ruled against the Railway Labor Executives’ Association. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that the government's interest in assuring safety on the nation's railroads
constituted a "special need" which justified a departure from standard warrant and probablecause requirements in searches.
Focus Questions
Think about these questions after reading the case study:
What are the implications of this ruling?
Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not?
Fourth Amendment and the Body
Case Study #2: Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of
Pottawatomie County v. Earls, et al. (2002)
Facts:
In 1998, Independent School District No. 92, located 40
miles outside of Oklahoma City, in Pottawatomie
County, Oklahoma, adopted the Student Activities Drug
Testing Policy. The policy required random drug testing
of all students who participated in any extracurricular
activities within the school district. Students could be
tested at any time during the school year, and positive
tests resulted in increasing limitations on participation,
up to and including suspension from the activity. Two
Tecumseh High School students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel
James, challenged the policy. Earls, a member of the choir, marching band, and academic
team; and James, a member of the academic team, believed that the policy violated their
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Decision:
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ability of schools to rid their campuses
of illegal drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy. The Court had already ruled in
Vernonia v. Acton (1995) that testing of athletes did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
decision in Pottawatomie expanded the ruling in Acton, and allowed schools to test students
who participate in any competitive after-school programs for drug use, even without any
particular suspicion of wrongdoing.
Focus Questions
Think about these questions after reading the case study:
What are the implications of this ruling?
Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not?
Fourth Amendment and the Body
Case Study #3: Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2006)
Facts:
Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School,
in Arizona, was strip-searched by school officials on the
basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might
have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy.
Based on this suspicion, school officials first searched her
belongings; then, believing that "students ... hid contraband
in or under their clothing," had her strip to her underwear,
"pull her bra out and to the side and shake it," and "pull out
the elastic on her underpants" to see what might fall out. The officials did not find any
contraband on Redding's person, and they did not contact Redding's parents at any point
during the investigation. Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and
the school officials responsible for the search.
Decision:
In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a strip search of a middle schooler violated
the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs
the girl allegedly had in her possession (Ibuprofen) presented a danger or that they were
concealed in her underwear. Justice Souter noted that a school search “will be permissible
in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the
search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature
of the infraction.” Ultimately, “the intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot be seen as
justifiably related to the circumstances.”
Focus Questions
Think about these questions after reading the case study:
What are the implications of this ruling?
Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not?
Fourth Amendment and the Body
Case Study #4: Florence v. County of Burlington (2012)
Facts:
Albert W. Florence was riding in a vehicle in New Jersey driven by
his wife with their three children when she was pulled over for a
traffic offense. The officer looked up Florence in the police
computer database and discovered an outstanding warrant issued
for Florence after he failed to appear for a hearing regarding a fine.
Florence had already paid the fine, but the computer erroneously
listed an outstanding warrant. Florence was arrested and spent six
days in jail before being transferred to Essex County's jail. At both
jails, custody officers "conducted a visual inspection of his body,
instructing him to open his mouth, lift his tongue, lift his arms, and
then lift his genitals." Florence went before a judge and was quickly
released from jail.
Florence filed suit against the two jails alleging that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights had been violated. Florence argued that persons arrested for minor offenses cannot be
subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of
weapons, drugs, or other contraband." He explained, “I consider myself a man’s man. Sixthree. Big guy. It was humiliating. It made me feel less than a man.”
Decision:
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a local law-enforcement policy that required
officials to strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting
them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general [jail] population may be required to
undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Justice Stephen G.
Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said the strip searches the majority allowed were “a
serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” and should be used only when
there was good reason to do so.
Focus Questions
Think about these questions after reading the case study:
What are the implications of this ruling?
Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not?
Fourth Amendment and the Body
Case Study #5: Missouri v. McNeely (2013)
Facts:
October 3, 2010, Tyler McNeely was stopped by a highway
patrolman for speeding in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri.
McNeely failed several field sobriety tests, and was asked to
submit to an alcohol breath test, which he refused. He was
then transported to a medical clinic where Officer Mark
Winder, acting without a warrant and without McNeeley’s
consent, directed clinic personnel to remove blood from
McNeely. The subsequent blood test showed McNeely's bloodalcohol levels to be well above the legal limit, and he was
charged with driving while intoxicated. McNeely sued,
asserting that the blood draw violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures, and asserting that the blood test results should not have
been considered in court because they were obtained in an illegal fashion.
Decision:
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the drawing of blood does constitute a
“search” under the Fourth Amendment, and thus, generally requires a warrant. Additionally,
in drunk driving investigations, the fact that alcohol in the bloodstream dissipates relatively
quickly, making it difficult to determine from a test result whether a person driving was drunk
unless the test is conducted immediately, does not constitute an exigency (i.e. an emergency
situation excusing the warrant requirement) in every case. In other words, states cannot
routinely compel blood tests without warrants or consent. Justice Sotomayor observed:
“[T]hough a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive
than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any
compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected
privacy interests.”
Focus Questions
Think about these questions after reading the case study:
What are the implications of this ruling?
Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not?
Fourth Amendment and the Body
Case Study #6: Maryland v. King (2013)
Alonza Jay King Jr. was arrested on assault
charges. During his booking, police took a
sample of his DNA by swabbing his mouth and
submitted it for analysis to the state’s DNA
database. The database later revealed a hit, and
implicated King in an unsolved rape case. Police
took a second swab, and again obtained a
match. King was charged with the rape, and
sought to suppress the results, arguing that
police had violated his Fourth Amendment rights
by taking the DNA without a finding of probable cause or a warrant. The state of Maryland,
where King was arrested, however, authorized law enforcement officials to collect DNA
samples from all individuals arrested, but not yet tried, for a crime of violence. The question
the Court had to resolve in this case was whether it is reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment for a state to have a law allowing police to extract, put in a database, and use in
a search for matches in past crimes the DNA of everyone arrested of a violent crime.
Decision:
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme ruled that the taking of DNA during an arrest, without a
warrant, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In the opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote,
“when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and
bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab
of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police
booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” The Court's decision
did not specify whether the warrantless taking of DNA was limited to serious crimes or any
crime.
Focus Questions
Think about these questions after reading the case study:
What are the implications of this ruling?
Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not?