Complete a paragraph explaining and combing the following information

Annotated Chapter Outline

• Introduction
  • Administrative searches are carried out by public agencies' investigators rather than the police.
    • They are intended to determine that standards to protect public safety and welfare are being met.
  • Special-needs searches are not to investigate a crime but rather are concerned with enforcing regulations that protect the safety and welfare of individuals and the public.
    • Do not require a warrant or probable cause.
• Administrative Inspections: Conforming to Agency Regulations
  • Administrative inspectionsensure that individuals and businesses are conforming to a broad range of agency regulations.
    • Examples include health regulations, fire codes, housing codes, and worker safety.
    • These searches are carried out by administrative investigators, but the police may be involved at times.
      • Violation can result in both a civil fine and a criminal conviction.
  • InCamara v. Municipal Court,the Supreme Court held unconstitutional an ordinance that authorized inspectors to enter private residences without a warrant.
  • Modified probable cause: Administrative warrants are based on probable cause, such as inspecting a building of a particular age.
  • A warrant is not required when an individual consents to a search.
  • Closely regulated businessauthorizes warrantless inspections of businesses that are highly regulated.
    • Affirmed in theNew York v. Burgercase.
• Special-Needs Searches: Promote Safety and Welfare
  • Special-needs searchesaresearches that do not serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement and are intended to promote safety and welfare of individuals and the public.
  • They are not intended to gather evidence of a crime.
  • Reasonableness is determined by balancing the interests of the government against individual privacy rights.
  • These searches generally do not require a warrant or probable cause.
  • Types of special-needs searches include:
    • Border searches: Brief and unintrusive routine searches at the U.S. border may be conducted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
    • Automobile checkpoints: Automobiles may be briefly stopped at fixed checkpoints in the interests of highway safety.
    • Airport screenings of passengers: Airline passengers and their belongings and baggage may be searched without reasonable suspicion.
    • Workplace drug testing: Employees who are on a job that involves danger pose a threat to the public and may be required to submit to suspicionless drug testing.
    • School drug testing and searches: Drug tests of certain students may be carried out in the schools without reasonable suspicion.
    • Probationers and parolees: Individuals under the supervision of the state authorities have a diminished expectation of privacy and generally may be searched based on reasonable suspicion.
    • Prisoners: Prisoners lack expectation of privacy and their cells may be searched without reasonable suspicion.
• International Borders: Prevent Illegal Entry and Smuggling of Contraband
  • Border exceptionis an exception to the Fourth Amendment that routine searches at the border without reasonable suspicion are allowed based on the sovereign right of the United States.
  • The interest to prevent illegal entry and smuggling outweighs an individual's privacy interest while seeking to enter the United States.
  • Roving Patrols
    • Suspicionless stops and searches by roving patrols are lawful at the border or functional equivalent of the border, such as a border station and highway intersections leading from the border.
      • The functional equivalent of the border was defined by the Supreme Court inAlmeida-Sanchez v. United States.
    • Stops outside of the border region must be based on reasonable suspicion.
      • As seen addressed inUnited States v. Brignoni-Ponce.
  • Border Searches
    • Routine border searchesare typical searches of luggage and persons with no requirement of suspicion or articulable suspicion.
    • Nonroutine border searchesintrude on individuals' dignity and privacy; require articulable suspicion.
• Motor Vehicle Checkpoints: Fixed Automobile Checkpoints Instead of Spot Checking
  • InDelaware v. Prouse,the Supreme Court ruled that the police may not pull vehicles over to "spot check" without reasonable suspicion.
  • The Supreme Court approved of fixed checkpoints inUnited States v. Martinez-Fuerte
  • Fixed checkpoints reduce stress by:
    • Discretion:Locations of checkpoints are selected to effectively combat illegal immigration.
    • Notice:Signs announce the checkpoint as motorists approach so they are not surprised.
    • Public:The stop at a checkpoint is brief and public.
    • Uniform:Every vehicle is stopped and inspected at a checkpoint.
• Airport Screening: Preventing Airborne Terrorism
  • Airport screeningisa search passengers undergo before boarding a flight without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
  • Preboarding screen is reasonable for various factors:
    • Security threat: Thesearch is carried out in response to clear danger and threat to aircraft.
    • Minimally intrusive:X-rays and wands are directed at finding weapons and explosives, and are brief and limited in intrusiveness.
    • Effectiveness:The mass and random screening is reasonably related to detection and deterrence of air terrorism; random procedures contribute to deterrence.
    • Notice:Individuals are aware they will be subjected to screening.
    • Abuse:The possibility of abuse is limited by the public nature of airport screenings and because all passengers are subjected to screenings.
    • Intrusiveness:The intrusiveness of the search is limited by the need to combat threats to air safety.
    • Avoidance:Airport screening procedures permit individuals to avoid a search by deciding not to board the aircraft before entering the screening process.
  • InCorbett v. Transportation Security Administration,the Eleventh Circuit held that the use of scanners and pat-down searches at airport checkpoints is a reasonable and effective administrative measure.
• Workplace Drug Testing: Considered Reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
  • InSkinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association,the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an alcohol and drug testing program established by the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration.
  • It was upheld because of:
    • Government interests: The government has interest in highly regulating "safety-sensitive" activities in occupations that place the public at risk or pose a danger.
    • Intrusiveness: Drug tests are minimally intrusive and employees working in dangerous occupations in heavily regulated industries possess a diminished expectation of privacy.
    • Warrants: A warrant requirement for search would be impractical because the evidence of use would likely disappear before a warrant could be obtained.
    • Articulable suspicion: A program of testing without reasonable suspicion following an accident deters drug abuse because employees are aware that the unpredictable nature of accidents means that they may be tested and detected at any time they are on the job.
  • Regulations limit the circumstances in which a search may be conducted.
• Searches in High School: Provide Students Protection
  • InNew Jersey v. T.L.O.,the Supreme Court addressed the special need for disciplinary searches and seizures within high schools.
  • A probable cause warrant would interfere with "swift and informal" disciplinary procedures required in a school.
  • School personnel must act with reason and common sense.
  • Drug testing in high schools:
    • InVernonia School District 47J v. Acton,the Supreme Court upheld drug testing in school, with the following reasoning:
      • Governmental interest: Schools have a duty to protect and educate children and drug use is destructive to students.
      • Student privacy: Students have a diminished expectation of privacy and student athletes have even less of an expectation of privacy, subjected to a regime of regulation such as physical examinations and adherence to rules of training.
      • Intrusiveness of drug tests: Drug tests conducted are relatively unintrusive and results are disclosed only to a limited number of school authorities; they are not distributed to law enforcement.
      • Suspicionless drug testing: Teachers are not trained to make reasonable suspicion determinations of drug use; reasonable suspicion would also single out and embarrass students and place them in a negative light.
• Probation and Parole: Search without a Warrant
  • Special-needs searches of probationers' homes ensure that offenders comply with the condition of their probation.
    • Recognized inGriffin v. WisconsinandUnited States v. Knights.
  • It is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to conduct suspicionless searches of parolees.
    • Found inSamson v. California.
• Correctional Institutions: No Rights to Privacy
  • As determined inHudson v. Palmer,inmates do not retain a right of privacy in their cells in order to:
    • Protect inmates and staff.
    • Inhibit the flow of weapons and drugs.
    • Stop escape plots.
  • Strip searching is more controversial.
    • InBell v. Wolfish,the Supreme Court approved visual cavity inspections in instances where an inmate returned to their cell block after a contact visit.
    • These searches are reasonable for the need to deter smuggling of weapons and drugs.
  • Criminal Procedure in the News.
    • Searching of electronic devices has increased substantially in recent years, sparking debate over personal privacy.
    • A new policy allows for basic searches and advanced searches.
      • Basic searches can be done without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
        • Devices can be searched while on airplane mode.
      • Advanced searches require reasonable suspicion.
        • Devices are forensically searched and another computer can be used to download information from the device.