Searches Directed at Probationers Griffin v. Wisconsin PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Procedure 2020 Notes...

Description

Criminal Procedure Fall 2020 Searches Directed at Probationers Griffin v. Wisconsin Facts: o In Griffin, the court approved a warrantless, non-exigent search by a probation officer (accompanied by the police) of the home of a probationer. The search, based on information provided by the police to the probation officer, was conducted pursuant to a Wisconsin administrative regulation that authorized such searches if there were reasonable grounds to believe that contraband would be discovered on the premises. o In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Scalia announced that the warrantless search of the residence in conformity with the regulation was a reasonable response to a special government need.

[C] Drug and Alcohol Testing [1] Fourth Amendment Factors in Evaluating Testing In specified circumstances, the Supreme Court has approved legally mandated drug and alcohol testing (by taking blood, urine, and breath samples) of some workers of public school students, in the absence of a search warrant and even in the absence of individualized suspicion. Cases authorizing suspicion-less testing are considered in subsection [2]; those prohibiting testing are covered in subsection [3]. Although the cases do not fit together perfectly, certain factors tend to support a finding that suspicion-less alcohol and drug testing is constitutionally reasonable. ▪ Regardless of the ultimate goal of the testing, the immediate objective of the testing must not be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes.

▪ Consistent with the administrative-search cases, testing is more likely to be treated favorably if those being tested are working in a job already pervasively regulated by the government or, in non-employment contexts, have a reduced expectation of privacy. ▪ In the employment context, there should be a significant relationship between the employee’s job responsibilities and the employer’s concern about drug or alcohol use. In other circumstances, there should be a significant societal reason for identifying drug users or alcohol abusers. ▪ The case for testing is strengthened if there is empirical evidence of a substantial need for the random testing program in question. Specifically, random testing is much more likely to be approved if there is evidence that a system based on individualized suspicion is impracticable, and that the testing scheme devised will be reasonably effective in satisfying the governmental need motivating the testing. ▪ Testing is more likely to be upheld if the regulations authorizing it remove most, if not all, of the discretion of the government agency in determining who will be tested and under what circumstances the testing will occur. ▪ Scrupulous care must be taken to ensure that the dignity of persons being tested is respected in the specimen-collected process. This is particularly a matter of concern with urine collection....