Administrative and suspicionless searches: schools, checkpoints, borders, new technology, and community caretaking

Black-letter propositions

1. 01

   The Fourth Amendment applies to searches by public school officials, but they need neither a warrant nor probable cause, and a student search is reasonable if it is justified at its inception, meaning reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of a violation of law or school rules, and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances.

2. 02

   State-compelled collection and testing of urine is a search, and reasonableness is judged by balancing the intrusion on privacy against the government's interests, which allowed random drug testing of student athletes in the school's care.

3. 03

   A highway sobriety checkpoint that stops all vehicles is a seizure but is reasonable under a balancing test, but a checkpoint whose primary purpose is general crime control, such as detecting evidence of ordinary drug crimes, violates the Fourth Amendment.

4. 04

   A checkpoint that stops motorists to ask for help with information about a crime that others committed is constitutional, because its primary purpose is not to find whether occupants are committing a crime.

5. 05

   Border searches without probable cause or a warrant are reasonable, including routine searches of mail entering the country and of vehicles, and suspicion is not required to disassemble a vehicle's fuel tank at the border.

6. 06

   Using a device that is not in general public use, such as a thermal imager, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion is a search that is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

7. 07

   Attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements is a Fourth Amendment search, because the government physically intruded on an effect to obtain information.

8. 08

   Acquiring historical cell-site location records from a wireless carrier is a Fourth Amendment search that generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause, and the third-party doctrine does not automatically control.

9. 09

   The police generally may not search digital information on a cell phone seized from an arrestee without a warrant.

10. 10

    The community caretaking function of police justifies a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for a firearm, but it does not justify warrantless searches or seizures inside a home.

11. 11

    A warrantless blood draw incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving was reasonable when the officer reasonably believed there was an emergency, because alcohol in the blood dissipates and time was needed to bring the accused to a hospital and investigate the scene.

Use this attack sequence under time

Common wrong turns

• A public school official needs only reasonable grounds and not probable cause or a warrant to search a student.
• A checkpoint set up mainly to detect ordinary crime is unconstitutional even though it is brief and uniform.
• Border searches of vehicles do not need reasonable suspicion, but that does not mean every intrusive search of a person is allowed.
• Community caretaking is not an open-ended license to enter a home without a warrant.

Worked example

A school assistant principal, after a teacher says a student was seen smoking in the restroom, opens the student's purse and finds cigarettes and other evidence of drug dealing. The student moves to suppress in a delinquency proceeding.

Practice this topic

Schools, testing, and checkpoints

New Jersey v. T.L.O. held that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches by public school officials, that they need not obtain a warrant or have probable cause, and that the legality of a student search depends on reasonableness under all the circumstances, meaning whether the search was justified at its inception, where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of a violation of the law or school rules, and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it.

Vernonia School District v. Acton held that state-compelled collection and testing of urine is a search, that reasonableness is judged by balancing the intrusion against legitimate government interests, and that the policy of random drug testing of student athletes was constitutional. Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz upheld a highway sobriety checkpoint program as consistent with the Fourth Amendment, while City of Indianapolis v. Edmond held that checkpoints whose primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control violate it, and Illinois v. Lidster held that an information-seeking checkpoint about a crime committed by others did not violate it.

Borders and technology

United States v. Ramsey held that border searches without probable cause and without a warrant are reasonable, and that including international mail within the border search exception is no extension of it. United States v. Flores-Montano held that the government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border and that the search of a vehicle's fuel tank did not require reasonable suspicion.

Kyllo v. United States held that using a device not in general public use to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion is a search that is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. United States v. Jones held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements is a search. Carpenter v. United States held that the government's acquisition of cell-site records was a search and generally required a warrant supported by probable cause, and Riley v. California held that police generally may not search digital information on a cell phone seized from an arrestee without a warrant.

Caretaking and emergencies

Cady v. Dombrowski held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for a revolver was not unreasonable because the police had exercised a form of custody over a vehicle that constituted a hazard on the highway and the search was standard procedure to protect the public. Caniglia v. Strom held that neither the holding nor the logic of Cady justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home, because recognizing community caretaking tasks is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.

Schmerber v. California held that the withdrawal of blood incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving was reasonable where the officer might reasonably have believed he was confronted with an emergency in which delay to obtain a warrant threatened the destruction of evidence, because alcohol in the blood diminishes after drinking stops and time was needed to bring the accused to a hospital and investigate the scene.

Frequently asked questions