Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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 probable-cause 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?
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 restrictions to 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 Veronia v. Acton (1995)that testing of athletes did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision inPottawatomieexpanded 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?
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 thestrip search here cannot be seen as justifiably related tothe 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?
Case Study #4: Florence v. County of Burlington(2012)
Facts:
Albert W. Florence was riding in a vehicle inNew 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. Six-three.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?
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 blood-alcohol levels to be well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated.McNeely sued, asserting that this action 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 Sottomayor 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?