Constitutional drug testing for all extracurricular activities (Earls, 2002) Convicts Probation officers can search probationer’s home on reasonable suspicion Based on – special need (Griffin, 1987) Probation officer/cop can search probationer on reasonable suspicion Based on – consent (Knights, 2001) (2006) Samson Parolee searched by police officer on zero suspicion results in methamphetamine Holding Valid suspicionless search – Balancing TOTC – Parolees have very low expectation of privacy Government wants to ensure isn’t committing crimes still Δ Friedman is uncomfortable with this unbridled discretion for officers, only possible justification would be special rule restricting to parolees Employees Test Government can search if it is justified at inception and limited in scope Government can also conduct random searches (Von Raab) Upheld statute for drug tests after train accidents Overturned drug testing for candidates for GA state offices (1987) Upheld search of doctor at government hospital O’Connor v. Ortega – Administrative Searches and Alternative Safeguards Test Requires regulatory warrant equivalent (administrative standards) (Camara) Limit officer discretion Time, place, scope (Burger) – Notice that search is possible (Burger) Balance (Burger) Substantial government interest that informs regulatory scheme Inspection is necessary to further regulatory scheme Factors (Camara) History of this type of inspection Closely regulated industry (Burger) Public interest in curbing dangerous condition Reasonable alternatives of intrusion (not looking for personal effects) Examples (1967) Camara Government entering private for safety inspection Holding: Inspection is unreasonable requires regulatory warrant equivalent Time between inspections, age of building, etc. objective criteria – (1987) Burger Regulatory inspection of a junk yard by auto-crimes division
Constitutional drug testing for all extracurricular activities (Earls, 2002) Convicts Probation officers can search probationer’s home on reasonable suspicion – Based on special need (Griffin, 1987) Probation officer/cop can search probationer on reasonable suspicion – Based on consent (Knights, 2001) Samson (2006) Parolee searched by police officer on zero suspicion results in methamphetamine Holding – Valid suspicionless search Balancing – TOTC Parolees have very low expectation of privacy Government wants to ensure Δ isn’t committing crimes still Friedman is uncomfortable with this unbridled discretion for officers, only possible justification would be special rule restricting to parolees Employees Test Government can search if it is justified at inception and limited in scope Government can also conduct random searches (Von Raab) Upheld statute for drug tests after train accidents Overturned drug testing for candidates for GA state offices O’Connor v. Ortega (1987) – Upheld search of doctor at government hospital Administrative Searches and Alternative Safeguards Test Requires regulatory warrant equivalent (administrative standards) (Camara) Limit officer discretion – Time, place, scope (Burger) Notice that search is possible (Burger) Balance (Burger) Substantial government interest that informs regulatory scheme Inspection is necessary to further regulatory scheme Factors (Camara) History of this type of inspection Closely regulated industry (Burger) Public interest in curbing dangerous condition Reasonable alternatives of intrusion (not looking for personal effects) Examples Camara (1967) Government entering private for safety inspection Holding: Inspection is unreasonable requires regulatory warrant equivalent Time between inspections, age of building, etc. – objective criteria Burger (1987) Regulatory inspection of a junk yard by auto-crimes division
CrimPro%20Friedman%20Spring%202013.docx