Special Needs

Question 1

Cases before Maryland v. King

Answer 1

• COURT APPLIES INTEREST BALANCING
• Individualized suspicion WAS REQUIRED:
• NJ v. TLO, (1985) → school personnel may search student’s belongings if there are “reasonable grounds for suspecting” the student has violated the law or rules of the school and the scope of the search is not “excessively intrusive”  the court approved the search of a student’s purse by the public-school principal based on reasonableness
• Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987)  Warrantless searches by probation officers of probationers’ homes on “reasonable grounds” that contraband was present are reasonable.
• O’Connor v. Ortega (1987)  Warrantless search of office, desk, or file cabinet of gov hospital doctor suspected of mismanagement was reasonable
• Individualized suspicion NOT REQUIRED: (aka programmatic)
• BOE v. Earls, (2002) – suspicion-less drug testing of student athletes - students privacy interest were limited especially given their voluntary choice to participate in extracurricular activities, the degree of intrusion caused by the collection of a urine sample was minimal and the schools interest in combating the drug problem was sufficiently great to make the practice constitutional
• Chandler v. Miller (1997)  But absent a “sufficiently great” state interest and appropriate means to achieve it, Court will not rubber stamp such programs, even if the intrusion is minimal
• **Murray calls these “Terry Light Cases” b/c these are Terry style intrusions

Question 2

Maryland v. King (2013)

Answer 2

• A cheek swab taken during booking, while a search, is not an unreasonable one; it is analogous to other legitimate booking procedures such as mug shots and fingerprinting, which are designed to serve the significant state interest in confirming the arrestee’s identity.
• Buccal swab = subject to reasonableness
  o Does not intrude on privacy;
  o privacy concerns are already diminished by being in custody
  o swab is a minimally intrusive
  o is a search
• Suspicionless searches are permitted when: (1) the primary purpose is not investigation; (2) privacy interests are low; and (3) discretion is lacking
• Ultimately, the King rule: a lawful arrest based on PC for a “serious” crime permits police to collect DNA from the suspect via a check swab (minimal intrusion) for ID purposes (significant, non-investigative purpose). If the purpose is investigation, individualized suspicion is then required.

Question 3

Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) (BAC case)

Answer 3

Person was being taken to the hospital by police as he was found extremely drunk. Got worse on the way and lost consciousness at the hospital.

• Court held that when a driver is unconscious and CANNOT be given a breath test - EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE generally permits a blood test w/out a warrant

. Exigency: (1) BAC evidence is dissipating; and (2) health, safety, or leaw enforcement needs pressing. When a breath test is impossible, enforcement of the drunk driving laws depends upon administering a blood test.

• Court also conducts reasonableness balancing analysis for category of cases involving unconscious drivers
• Vital public interest: eradicating drunk driving
• Effective testing is necessary to enforce laws (“BAC tests are crucial links in a chain on which vital interests hang”)
• Privacy: medical attention would result in same invasiveness