CHAPTER SEVEN
“SPECIAL NEEDS” SEARCHES
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, students should be able to:
1. Understand that special needs searches are directed at people generally, can result in
criminal prosecution, and don’t require warrants or probable cause.
2. Know that following routine, department-approved procedures allows law enforcement to
3. Know that the special need of the United States to control who and what comes into its
4. Understand that the special need to maintain airport security and safety outweighs the
5. Appreciate that the special needs to maintain safety, security, and discipline over people
locked up in jails and prisons, probationers, and parolees outweigh the reduced
6. Understand that the reasonableness of a public college’s or university’s entry and
7. Understand and appreciate how SCOTUS has applied the balancing ideal to drug testing
Lesson Plan
I. “Special Needs” Searches
Learning Objective 1: Understand that special needs searches are directed at people generally,
can result in criminal prosecution, and don’t require warrants or probable cause.
Class Discussion/Activity
In what ways are special needs searches different? In what ways are they similar?
Are there any other ways they are similar besides those described in the text?
What If Scenario
What if probable cause or warrants were required for all of the Special needs
searches described in this chapter? What might be the consequences of this change?
A. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied the Fourth Amendment to a wide range of searches
to meet “special needs” that go beyond criminal law enforcement.
B. Special needs searches include:
1. Inventory searches
3. Airport searches
5. Public college and university dormitory inspections
7. Prenatal patient drug testing
9. Other Special needs searches
C. “Special needs searches” doesn’t mean they’re totally unrelated to law enforcement.
D. Special needs searches share four common characteristics:
1. They’re directed at people generally, not just criminal suspects and defendants
specifically.
3. They don’t require warrants or probable cause.
4. Their reasonableness depends on balancing the government needs against invasions
of individual privacy.
3
4
5
II. Inventory Searches
Learning Objective 2: Know that following routine, department- approved procedures allows
law enforcement to conduct inventory and container searches without probable cause or warrants
to protect the owners’ belongings, to prevent lawsuits against law enforcement departments, and
to protect law enforcement agents.
Media Tool
“Police Duties to Inventory Property”
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28583
o Portland, Oregon auditor’s website explanation of inventory of property by
police of property, vehicles, and persons in custody.
o Discussion: How does this description of an inventory differ from what you
read in the text? Why does this description differ? Hint: the person writing it
is an auditor, not in law enforcement. What do you think is the purpose of
providing this information by the auditor’s office?
What If Scenario
What if inventory searches were required but any evidence found was not allowed in
court? How would this impact the ability of law enforcement officers to do their job?
A. Inventory searches consist of examining and making a list of people’s personal property
and containers held in government custody.
B. The reasonableness of an inventory search depends on satisfying two elements:
1. Balancing interests: A search is reasonable if the government’s special need
outweighs the individual’s privacy rights and if it meets at least one of three criteria:
2. Objective basis: Routine procedures, not probable cause or reasonable suspicion, are
required:
a. Following routine, department-approved, written procedures takes the place of
probable cause and reasonable suspicion in inventory searches.
b. This still allows plenty of discretionary decision making by officers.
III. International Border Searches
8. Learning Objective 3: Know that the special need of the United States to control who
and what comes into its borders makes international border searches reasonable without
warrants or probable cause. Appreciate that some objective basis is required to justify
strip and body cavity searches.
Media Tool
“Can Your Digital Devices Be Searched at the Border (Without a Warrant)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnhkJC_dpeM
6-8
o YouTube discussion of the search of digital devices at the border.
o Discussion: With the concern at the borders for national security do you think
that the searches have gone too far? Would you have concerns about these
types of searches of your digital devices? What precautions do you take
before you travel, if any?
Class Discussion/Activity
Investigate the PATRIOT Act on the internet. This activity can be done in small
groups or, if the class is small, as a class. Discuss with students how difficult it is to
try to read the PATRIOT Act given its length. Have students find an abbreviated
version of the PATRIOT Act and discuss what increased search ability has been
given to law enforcement agencies tasked with protecting the United States from
foreign enemies.
What If Scenario
What if border protection officers were allowed to search anyone near a border for any
reason? What kind of abuses might occur as a result? Do you think that more terrorists
might be captured?
A. Searches at international borders without warrants or probable cause are reasonable.
1. This is known as the border search exception.
B. The government’s special interest in controlling who and what comes into and goes out
of the country makes the searches reasonable.
C. Reasonable suspicion is required to back up strip searches for contraband and weapons.
D. Body-cavity searches at the border are only reasonable if they’re backed up by probable
cause.
IV. Airport Searches
Learning Objective 4: Understand that the special need to maintain airport security and safety
outweighs the minimal invasions of walking through metal detectors and allowing luggage to be
observed by X-ray.
Media Tool
“Transportation and Security Administration” http://www.tsa.gov/
o Website for the Transportation and Security Administration.
o Discussion: According to the website, what might you experience regarding
security checks when you are flying? How are domestic flight security
protocols different from international flights? What can you do to speed up the
process? Do you think that this is making the United States safer?
Class Discussion/Activity
How do the searches in this chapter differ from those in Chapter Six? What is the
primary reason for most of these searches? How have/do current events impact the
way that special needs searches are viewed by citizens?
10
9
A. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that airport searches are reasonable without warrants or
probable cause.
B. The searches serve two extremely important special needs: the security and safety of air
travelers.
C. The special needs clearly outweigh the minimal invasion of privacy, and all invasions
apply equally to all passengers who are notified in advance of the searches.
V. Custody-Related Searches
Learning Objective 5: Appreciate that the special needs to maintain safety, security, and discipline
over people locked up in jails and prisons, probationers, and parolees outweigh the reduced expectation
of privacy that society grants to people in the custody of the criminal justice system. Understand that
individuals can be subject to these special needs searches before being convicted of a crime.
Class Discussion/Activity
In small groups, or the class as a whole if the class is small, have students find
videos of a search of an inmate, probationer, or parolee online. After watching the
videos, have students discuss what the officers did correctly or incorrectly based on
their understanding of special needs searches.
What If Scenario
What if parole officers had to have probable cause to search their clients’ homes? What
might the outcome of this change mean for law enforcement? For parolees? For prisons?
A. The balance between the special needs to maintain safety, security, and discipline over people
locked up in jails and prisons and probationers and parolees outweighs the significantly
reduced expectation of privacy that society grants to such people.
B. All of the following can be searched without probable cause— or without objective basis at all
in some cases:
2. Prison visitors and employees
4. Probationers who could be but aren’t locked up
5. Defendants detained before they’re convicted
C. Searches of Prisoners
1. The reasonableness of searches of prisoners depends on balancing the need to maintain
See Assignment 3
11
12
3. Since Hudson v. Palmer, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that prisoners aren’t beyond the
reach of the Constitution and that no “iron curtain” separates free society from prison
society; however, “imprisonment carries with it the loss of many significant rights.”
D. Strip and body cavity searches of jail inmates
1. Strip searches of arrested individuals detained in jail are Fourth Amendment searches.
2. Strip searches are reasonable without warrants or probable cause if, in the particular
3. Strip searches are reasonable even for persons arrested and detained for minor offenses.
E. Testing and storing prisoners’ DNA
1. All states and the federal government have statutes that mandate DNA testing of all
incarcerated felons.
3. Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the reasonableness of the testing the U.S.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Georgia’s statute.
F. Searching probationers and parolees
1. Probationers and parolees have diminished Fourth Amendment rights, even though they’re
not locked up.
3. Parolees are released prisoners who remain on supervision after release.
4. Three theories support reduced expectations of privacy for probationers and parolees:
5. Searching probationers
a. Probation officers can search probationers’ homes without warrants as long as they’re
6. Search parolees
7. Searching people not charged with any crime
a. The Supreme Court has yet to interrogate the issue, but a California court discussed the
issue in Norris v. Premier Integrity Solutions, Inc. 641 F.3d 695 (CA6 2011)
VI. Searching College Students’ Dormitory Rooms
Learning Objective 6: Understand that the reasonableness of a public college’s or university’s entry
and inspection of dormitory rooms requires balancing the institution’s responsibility to provide a
suitable learning environment against the students’ right not to have unreasonable searches of their
“home.”
15
13
14
Media Tool
“The Right to Search Students” http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational–
leadership/dec01/vol59/num04/The-Right-to-Search-Students.aspx
o Educational Leadership website journal article about balancing safety in
schools with student rights.
o Discussion: Is it important, given the tragic events at high schools in the
United States, that students be searched to verify they are not carrying
weapons? How do we balance the rights of students to be safe with the
rights of students to privacy?
What If Scenario
What if school officials had to notify parents prior to searching any student
or their locker or property? Would school safety be compromised? How?
A. Courts have focused on the public concern with violence and drugs in schools.
B. Although the court ruled a partial strip search unreasonable it granted the school
authorities who conducted the search qualified immunity from paying damages for
participating in the search.
Class Discussion/Activity
Have students look up your college/university policy on dormitory room
searches. Were they aware of the policy? How do they feel about the policy? Do
they agree that the college/university should have access to their rooms?
Why/why not?
C. The Supreme Court has not yet answered how much protect the Fourth Amendment
guarantees college students in their dormitory rooms and few lower federal and state
courts have done so either.
D. It is important to remember that the Fourth Amendment applies only to governments
officials and so is not applicable to private schools.
E. Cases regarding searches of dormitory rooms fall into two subdivisions:
2. Search conducted by local law enforcement.
4. Because different colleges place different weights on student’s rights, room searches
vary by campus.
5. Cases are supported by three justifications:
a. Emergency or exigent circumstances
b. The “special relationship” between the college/university and students
c. The college/university’s duty to provide the appropriate environment for learning
See Assignment 5
VII. Drug Testing
Learning Objective 7: Understand and appreciate how SCOTUS has applied the balancing ideal
to drug testing of (1) employees in the workplace, (2) pregnant women in hospitals, and (3) high
school students.
Class Discussion/Activity
Have students look up your state policy on state employee drug testing. When are
state employees tested for drug use? What state employees are subjected to such
testing? What is the rationale for the testing? Does the policy follow the
procedures described in the text? Would it stand up to a constitutional test?
A. Employee drug testing
1. Employee drug testing in the workplace, in accordance with administrative
regulations, without either warrants or individualized suspicion, is reasonable.
B. Prenatal drug testing in hospitals
1. Forced drug testing and arrests of pregnant patients who tested positive for drug use
violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
C. High school student drugs testing
18–20
parents while students are in school.
3. Random drug testing required of student athletes and any students participating in
extracurricular activity is reasonable according to the Supreme Court.
Chapter Summary
Special needs searches are directed at people generally due to a public need such as public
protection. Since they are not the result of individualized suspicion, objective bases like routine
Searches at international borders are reasonable even without warrants or probable cause due
to the border search exception. The government has the right to control who and what comes in
and out of the country. This special need results in the routine and warrantless inspection of
packages crossing the border. It is generally not necessary to establish probable cause or secure a
warrant where public officials use metal detectors, X-ray, and other means to provide for public
16
17
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part,
except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password–
protected website for classroom use.
safety and security. Reasonable suspicion is required for a strip search and probable cause is
required for a body cavity search.
As a result of airline hijackings and terrorist bombings in the 1970s, travelers have to pass
through metal detectors before boarding airplanes. The U.S. Supreme Court, based on the
balancing test of Fourth Amendment reasonableness, has found that such searches are reasonable
without warrants or probable cause. These searches serve two extremely important special needs:
the security and safety of air travelers. Since September 11, 2001, these searches have become
more frequent and intrusive but so has the sense of urgency about security.
When an individual is in custody, the need for security and discipline increases while the
expectation of privacy decreases. Courts maintain that very prisoners retain few privacy rights,
but that rights are not lost altogether. Prisoners and their cells, prison visitors, prison employees,
parolees, probationers, and detained defendants prior to conviction can all be searched without a
warrant or probable cause.
The reasonableness of prisoner searches depends on balancing the need to maintain prison and
jail security, safety, and discipline against the invasion of prisoners’ substantially reduced
safety is to be met subsequent to their release.
Officials at public colleges and universities represent the public sector and are thereby
restricted in their abilities to infringe on privacy rights, but are afforded additional leeway due to
their need to preserve a safe atmosphere conducive to learning. Courts vary as to the value they
place on students’ right against unreasonable searches. Cases have adopted and blended three
tests are applied as a condition for students who enroll in school activities.
Key Terms
inventory searches: Searches conducted without probable cause or warrants in order to protect
property and the safety of police and to prevent claims against police. (p. 287)
containers: include vehicles, purses, clothing, or anything else where people in custody might
put their belongings. (p. 287)
Assignments
1. Have students search for news articles about testing public high school students for drug use in their
local community or state. Read about the controversy surrounding such testing and how it should
be implemented. Which groups of students should be subjected to testing and why? How do
parents and students react to the policies or proposals for drug testing? Who is to pay for the
2. Have students research employee drug testing by privately owned businesses and corporations. Have
3. Discuss with students why probationers and parolees have diminished protection under the
Fourth Amendment. Who conducts the drug testing of probationers and parolees in your
community—the probation or parole agency employees or a private drug testing firm? Have
4. Have students research the inventory policy of the local county jail. What procedures do they
follow when a detainee is booked in? Have student write a paper explaining the reasoning for
5. Have students research the policy at your school regarding searches of student housing. Have
students write a paper answering the following questions. Does the policy align with the Supreme