Chapter 11
Evidence is Admissible if
Obtained During an
Administrative Function
Under the “Special Needs” of
Government
1




“Special needs” search & seizure issues
Special needs of the government to
ensure public safety
Special “regulatory” needs
Private businesses are NOT covered by
the 4th Amendment provisions.
2
Examples of “Special” searches
Security Screening at Airports,
Courthouses, and public buildings
or places
 Border searches, customs, and INS
 Roadblocks, DUI “Checkpoints”
 Drug trafficking? K-9’s?
 Fire, Health, Motor Vehicle,
Education, and Housing Inspections

3
Circumstances where special needs
would justify suspicion-less highway
stops
Detecting drunk drivers
 Verifying driver’s licenses and vehicle
registration
 Intercepting illegal aliens on border
highways
 Apprehending fleeing criminals
 Thwarting terrorist activity or attack

4
Evidence is admissible if obtained during an
administrative function under the “Special
Needs” of government



In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court held
that…
“Probable cause standard is peculiarly
related to criminal investigations” and
“may be unhelpful in analyzing the
reasonableness of routine administrative
functions.”
5
Thousands of administrative
searches and functions are
conducted every day by local, state,
and federal employees.
 The majority of these employees are
not law enforcement officers.
 They are not conducting criminal
investigations but are conducting
administrative functions that are
related to the special needs of the
government and the community.

6
Examples of searches without
probable cause or search warrants of
“Closely regulated businesses”
 Search
warrants are generally
required for the administrative
searches of commercial
properties. However, search
warrants are not required for
searches of “closely regulated”
industries.
7
U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 case
of New York v. Burger, 482
U.S.691, 107 S.Ct.2636.
3 requirements are needed:
1. There must be a “substantial”
government interest that informs
the business operator of the
“regulatory scheme” to which the
inspection is to be made.
2.
The inspection without a search warrant
must be “necessary to further the
regulatory scheme.”
8
3.
The regulatory law must perform
the two basic functions of a
search warrant
(a)
It must advise the business
owner that a search is to
be made pursuant to the
law.
(b) The law must limit the
discretion of the inspecting
officers.
9
Drug Testing?



With or without “reasonable suspicion?”
Private businesses may test employees without
it!
Government employees must be tested under
three conditions, with reasonable suspicion:



To ensure that the employee has “unimpeachable
integrity and judgment”
To enhance public safety
Protecting truly sensitive information
10
School-Related Drug Testing


School boards may require random drug
testing of student athletes.
They may also require random drug
testing of students participating in
extracurricular activities.
11
Work-Related Searches in
Government Offices


Private employers may make work-related
searches of employees’ desks, files, and
company-owned computers as they wish.
Public supervisors have wide latitude to
search public employee’s offices, desks,
and files without a search warrant or
probable cause.
12
Ortega Rule
 Work
related searches in public
safety or government offices
 Wide latitude to search, but . . .
 Greater justification needed to
search “personal items”
 Briefcase,
handbag, backpack, etc.
13
Identification Checkpoints in Public
Housing Projects


Due to excessive illegal drug use and
associated violence, residents are issued
identification cards and may be stopped,
usually at the entrance to a housing
project.
More and more states are holding that
these checkpoints are a violation of the
Fourth Amendment.
14
Border Searches

In U.S. v. Arnold (9th Cir., 2008), the court
held that federal border agents did not
need particular suspicion to view laptop
computer files.
15
Sham Roadblocks


These roadblocks have been upheld by the
courts.
Law enforcement may post fake notices
about drug checkpoints so motorists will
discard drugs and be observed doing so
by law enforcement officers.
16
Correctional Programs, Hearings



These and other requirements may cause prison
inmates to incriminate themselves.
In U.S. v. Knight (2002), the Supreme Court held
that persons on probation and parole had
diminished privacy interest.
Therefore, officers were justified to stop and
search based on reasonable suspicion that the
person was engaged in criminal activity.
17

However, in Samson v. CA (2006), the
Supreme Court held that law enforcement
officers may conduct suspicionless
searches of parolees, as they are still
under the “control” of the prison system.
18
Obtaining Evidence in Foreign
Countries



This is especially important for finding and
prosecuting terrorists.
It is also extremely difficult in some
jurisdictions.
MLATs (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties)
are used to obtain evidence in a number
of countries.
19