NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in
    the preliminary print of the United States Reports.  Readers are
    requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the
    United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other
    formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the
    preliminary print goes to press.

                       SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                    --------
                                   No. 96-126
                                    --------
                     WALKER L. CHANDLER, ET AL., PETITIONERS
                          v. ZELL D. MILLER, GOVERNOR OF
                         ___
                                 GEORGIA, ET AL.


       ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                                ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

                                [April 15, 1997]

  JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.


  The Fourth Amendment requires government to respect "[t]he right of the people
to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures." 
This restraint on government conduct generally bars officials from undertaking a
search or seizure absent individualized suspicion.  Searches conducted without
grounds for suspicion of particular individuals have been upheld, however, in
"certain limited circumstances."  See Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S.
                                      ___________________   _________
656, 668 (1989).  These circumstances include brief stops for questioning or
observation at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint, United States v. Martinez-
                                                 _____________    _________
Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 545-550, 566-567 (1976), or at a sobriety checkpoint,
_______
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444, 447, 455 (1990), and
______________________________    _____
administrative inspections in "closely regulated" businesses, New York v.
                                                              ________
Burger, 482 U. S. 691, 703-704 (1987).
_______
  Georgia requires candidates for designated state offices to certify that they
have taken a drug test and that the test result was negative.  Ga. Code Ann.
S21-2-140 (1993) (hereinafter S21-2-140).  We confront in this case the question
whether that requirement ranks among the

                                96-126 - OPINION

2                              CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

limited circumstances in which suspicionless searches are warranted.  Relying on
this Court's precedents sustaining drug-testing programs for student athletes,
customs employees, and railway employees, see Vernonia School Dist. 47J v.
                                              _________________________
Acton, 515 U. S. ___, ___ (1995) (slip op., at 3, 19-20) (random drug testing of
______
students who participate in interscholastic sports); Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 659
                                                     _________
(drug tests for United States Customs Service employees who seek transfer or
promotion to certain positions); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489
                                 _______    _______________________________
U. S. 602, 608-613 (1989) (drug and alcohol tests for railway employees involved
in train accidents and for those who violate particular safety rules), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit judged Georgia's law
constitutional.  We reverse that judgment.  Georgia's requirement that
candidates for state office pass a drug test, we hold, does not fit within the
closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.
                                        I
  The prescription at issue, approved by the Georgia Legislature in 1990, orders
that "[e]ach candidate seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state
office shall as a condition of such qualification be required to certify that
such candidate has tested negative for illegal drugs."  S21-2-140(b).  Georgia
was the first, and apparently remains the only, State to condition candidacy for
state office on a drug test. 
  Under the Georgia statute, to qualify for a place on the ballot, a candidate
must present a certificate from a state-approved laboratory, in a form approved
by the Secretary of State, reporting that the candidate submitted to a
urinalysis drug test within 30 days prior to qualifying for nomination or
election and that the results were negative.  S21-2-140(c).  The statute lists
as "[i]llegal drug[s]": marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphet-

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                              3
                                       ____

amines, and phencyclidines. S21-2-140(a)(3).  The designated state offices are:
"the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State
School Superintendent, Commissioner of Insurance, Commissioner of Agriculture,
Commissioner of Labor, Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Court of
Appeals, judges of the superior courts, district attorneys, members of the
General Assembly, and members of the Public Service Commission." 
S21-2-140(a)(4).
  Candidate drug tests are to be administered in a manner consistent with the
United States Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines, 53 Fed. Reg.
11979-11989 (1988), or other professionally valid procedures approved by
Georgia's Commissioner of Human Resources.  See S21-2-140(a)(2).  A candidate
may provide the test specimen at a laboratory approved by the State, or at the
office of the candidate's personal physician, see App. 4-5 (Joint Statement of
Undisputed Facts).  Once a urine sample is obtained, an approved laboratory
determines whether any of the five specified illegal drugs are present, id., at
                                                                        ___
5; S21-2-140(c), and prepares a certificate reporting the test results to the
candidate.
  Petitioners were Libertarian Party nominees in 1994 for state offices subject
to the requirements of S21-2-140.  The Party nominated Walker L. Chandler for
the office of Lieutenant Governor, Sharon T. Harris for the office of
Commissioner of Agriculture, and James D. Walker for the office of member of the
General Assembly.  In May 1994, about one month before the deadline for
submission of the certificates required by S21-2-140, petitioners Chandler,
Harris, and Walker filed this action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  They asserted, inter alia, that the drug tests
                                              __________
required by S21-2-140 violated their rights under the First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Naming

                                96-126 - OPINION

4                              CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

as defendants Governor Zell D. Miller and two other state officials involved in
the administration of S21-2-140, petitioners requested declaratory and
injunctive relief barring enforcement of the statute.
  In June 1994, the District Court denied petitioners' motion for a preliminary
injunction.  Stressing the importance of the state offices sought and the
relative unintrusiveness of the testing procedure, the court found it unlikely
that petitioners would prevail on the merits of their claims.  App. to Pet. for
Cert. 5B.  Petitioners apparently submitted to the drug tests, obtained the
certificates required by S21-2-140, and appeared on the ballot.  See Tr. of Oral
Arg. 5.  After the 1994 election, the parties jointly moved for the entry of
final judgment on stipulated facts.  In January 1995, the District Court entered
final judgment for respondents.
  A divided Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed.  73 F. 3d 1543 (1996).  It is
settled law, the court accepted, that the drug tests required by the statute
rank as searches.  But, as was true of the drug-testing programs at issue in
Skinner and Von Raab, the court reasoned, S21-2-140 serves "special needs,"
_______     _________
interests other than the ordinary needs of law enforcement.  The court therefore
endeavored to "`balance the individual's privacy expectations against the
Government's interests to determine whether it [was] impractical to require a
warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.'" 
73 F. 3d, at 1545 (quoting Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 665-666).
                           ________
  Examining the state interests involved, the court acknowledged the absence of
any record of drug abuse by elected officials in Georgia.  Nonetheless, the
court observed, "[t]he people of Georgia place in the trust of their elected
officials . . . their liberty, their safety, their economic well-being, [and]
ultimate responsibility for law enforcement."  73 F. 3d, at 1546.  Consequently,
"those vested with the highest executive authority to make

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                              5
                                       ____

public policy in general and frequently to supervise Georgia's drug interdiction
efforts in particular must be persons appreciative of the perils of drug use." 
Ibid.  The court further noted that "[t]he nature of high public office in
_____
itself demands the highest levels of honesty, clear-sightedness, and clear-
thinking."  Ibid.  Reciting responsibilities of the offices petitioners sought,
            _____
the Court of Appeals perceived those "positions [as] particularly susceptible to
the `risks of bribery and blackmail against which the Government is entitled to
guard.'"  Ibid. (quoting Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 674).
          _____          _________
  Turning to petitioners' privacy interests, the Eleventh Circuit emphasized
that the tests could be conducted in the office of the candidate's private
physician, making the "intrusion here . . . even less than that approved in Von
                                                                            ___
Raab."  73 F. 3d, at 1547.  The court also noted the statute's reference to
____
federally approved drug-testing guidelines.  Ibid.  The drug test itself would
                                             _____
reveal only the presence or absence of indicia of the use of particular drugs,
and not any other information about the health of the candidate.  Furthermore,
the candidate would control release of the test results: Should the candidate
test positive, he or she could forfeit the opportunity to run for office, and in
that event, nothing would be divulged to law enforcement officials.  Ibid. 
                                                                     _____
Another consideration, the court said, is the reality that "candidates for high
office must expect the voters to demand some disclosures about their physical,
emotional, and mental fitness for the position."  Ibid.  Concluding that the
                                                  _____
State's interests outweighed the privacy intrusion caused by the required
certification, the court held the statute, as applied to petitioners, not
inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 
Ibid. (Ftnote. 1)
      (Ftnote. 1)
_____


























                    
____________________

   1)  The court also rejected equal protection and free speech pleas made by
   1)  
petitioners.  73 F. 3d, at 1547-1549.  We hold S21-2-140 incompatible with the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and do not reach petitioners' further pleas.

                                96-126 - OPINION

6                              CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

  Judge Barkett dissented.  In her view, a balance of the State's and
candidates' interests was not appropriate, for the State had failed to establish
a special governmental need for the regime.  "There is nothing so special or
immediate about the generalized governmental interests involved here," she
observed, "as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment's requirement of
individualized suspicion for searches and seizures."  Id., at 1551.
                                                      ____
  We granted the petition for certiorari, 518 U. S. ___ (1996), and now
reverse. (Ftnote. 2)
         (Ftnote. 2)
                                       II
  We begin our discussion of this case with an uncontested point: Georgia's
drug-testing requirement, imposed by law and enforced by state officials,
effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 
See Skinner, 489 U. S., at 617; Tr. of Oral Arg. 36; Brief for United States as
    ________
Amicus Curiae 10 (collection and testing of urine to meet Georgia's
______________
certification statute "constitutes a search subject to the demands of the Fourth
Amendment" (internal quotation marks omitted)).  As explained in Skinner,
                                                                 _______
government-



























                    
____________________

   2)  The United States, as amicus curiae in support of respondents, suggests
   2)                        _____________
that this case may have become moot because there is no continuing controversy
regarding the now-completed 1994 election, and petitioners, who did not sue on
behalf of a class, failed to assert in the courts below that they intended to
run for a covered state office in a future election.  See Brief for United
States as Amicus Curiae 9-10, n. 4.  We reject the suggestion of mootness. 
          ______________
Petitioner Chandler represented, as an officer of this Court, that he plans to
run again, and counsel for the State does not contest that representation.  See
Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-6, 27; see also 28 U. S. C. S1653 (defective allegations of
jurisdiction curable by amendment at trial or in appellate stages).

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                              7
                                       ____

ordered "collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy
that society has long recognized as reasonable."  489 U. S., at 617.  Because
"these intrusions [are] searches under the Fourth Amendment," ibid., we focus on
                                                              _______
the question: Are the searches reasonable?
  To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based
on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.  See Vernonia, 515 U. S., at ___ -
                                                _________
___ (slip op., at 5-6).  But particularized exceptions to the main rule are
sometimes warranted based on "special needs, beyond the normal need for law
enforcement."  Skinner, 489 U. S., at 619 (internal quotation marks omitted). 
               _________
When such "special needs" - concerns other than crime detection - are alleged in
justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-
specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests
advanced by the parties.  See Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 665-666; see also id., at
                              ________                                  ____
668.  As Skinner stated: "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests
         _______
implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental
interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement
of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of
such suspicion."  489 U. S., at 624.
  In evaluating Georgia's ballot-access, drug-testing statute - a measure
plainly not tied to individualized suspicion - the Eleventh Circuit sought to
"`balance the individual's privacy expectations against the [State's]
interests,'" 73 F. 3d, at 1545 (quoting Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 665), in line
                                        ________
with our precedents most immediately in point: Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia. 
                                               __________________     _________
We review those decisions before inspecting Georgia's law.

                                96-126 - OPINION

8                              CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

                                        A
  Skinner concerned Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations that
  _______
required blood and urine tests of rail employees involved in train accidents;
the regulations also authorized railroads to administer breath and urine tests
to employees who violated certain safety rules.  489 U. S., at 608-612.  The FRA
adopted the drug-testing program in response to evidence of drug and alcohol
abuse by some railroad employees, the obvious safety hazards posed by such
abuse, and the documented link between drug- and alcohol-impaired employees and
the incidence of train accidents.  Id., at 607-608.  Recognizing that the
                                   ____
urinalysis tests, most conspicuously, raised evident privacy concerns, the Court
noted two offsetting considerations: First, the regulations reduced the
intrusiveness of the collection process, id., at 626; and, more important,
                                         ___
railway employees, "by reason of their participation in an industry that is
regulated pervasively to ensure safety," had diminished expectations of privacy,
id., at 627.
____
  "[S]urpassing safety interests," the Court concluded, warranted the FRA
testing program.  Id., at 634.  The drug tests could deter illegal drug use by
                  ____
railroad employees, workers positioned to "cause great human loss before any
signs of impairment become noticeable to supervisors."  Id., at 628.  The
                                                        ___
program also helped railroads to obtain invaluable information about the causes
of major train accidents.  See id., at 630.  Testing without a showing of
                               ____
individualized suspicion was essential, the Court explained, if these vital
interests were to be served.  See id., at 628.  Employees could not forecast the
                                  ____
timing of an accident or a safety violation, events that would trigger testing. 
The employee's inability to avoid detection simply by staying drug-free at a
prescribed test time significantly enhanced the deterrent effect of the program. 
See ibid.  Further-
    _____

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                              9
                                       ____

more, imposing an individualized suspicion requirement for a drug test in the
chaotic aftermath of a train accident would seriously impede an employer's
ability to discern the cause of the accident; indeed, waiting until suspect
individuals could be identified "likely would result in the loss or
deterioration of the evidence furnished by the tests."  Id., at 631.
                                                        ___
  In Von Raab, the Court sustained a United States Customs Service program that
     _________
made drug tests a condition of promotion or transfer to positions directly
involving drug interdiction or requiring the employee to carry a firearm.  489
U. S., at 660-661, 667-677. (Ftnote. 3)  While the Service's regime was not
                            (Ftnote. 3)
prompted by a demonstrated drug abuse problem, id., at 660, it was developed for
                                               ___
an agency with an "almost unique mission," id., at 674, as the "first line of
                                           ____
defense" against the smuggling of illicit drugs into the United States, id. at
                                                                        ___
668.  Work directly involving drug interdiction and posts that require the
employee to carry a firearm pose grave safety threats to employees who hold
those positions, and also expose them to large amounts of illegal narcotics and
to persons engaged in crime; illicit drug users in such high-risk positions
might be unsympathetic to the Service's mission, tempted by bribes, or even
threatened with blackmail.  See id., at 668-671.  The Court held that the
                                ____
government had a "compelling" interest in assuring that employees placed in
these positions would not include drug users.  See id., at
                                                   ____


























                    
____________________

   3)  The Service's program also required tests for individuals promoted or
   3)  
transferred to positions in which they would handle "classified" material.  489
U. S., at 661.  The Court agreed that the Government "ha[d] a compelling
interest in protecting truly sensitive information."  Id., at 677.  However, we
                                                      ___
did not rule on this aspect of the program, see id., at 677-678, because the
                                                ___
record did not clarify "whether the category defined by the [regulation]
encompas[sed] only those Customs employees likely to gain access to sensitive
information," id., at 678.
              ___

                                96-126 - OPINION

10                             CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

670-671.  Individualized suspicion would not work in this setting, the Court
determined, because it was "not feasible to subject [these] employees and their
work product to the kind of day-to-day scrutiny that is the norm in more
traditional office environments."  Id., at 674.
                                   ____
  Finally, in Vernonia, the Court sustained a random drug-testing program for
              _________
high school students engaged in interscholastic athletic competitions.  The
program's context was critical, for local governments bear large
"responsibilities, under a public school system, as guardian and tutor of
children entrusted to its care."  515 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19).  An
"immediate crisis," id., at ___ (slip op., at 17), caused by "a sharp increase
                    ___
in drug use" in the school district, id., at ___ (slip op., at 1), sparked
                                     _____
installation of the program.  District Court findings established that student
athletes were not only "among the drug users," they were "leaders of the drug
culture."  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2).  Our decision noted that "`students
           ____
within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members
of the population generally.'"  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 10) (quoting New
                                ___                                    ___
Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 348 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring)).  We
______    ________
emphasized the importance of deterring drug use by schoolchildren and the risk
of injury a drug-using student athlete cast on himself and those engaged with
him on the playing field.  See Vernonia, 515 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16).
                               ________
                                        B
  Respondents urge that the precedents just examined are not the sole guides for
assessing the constitutional validity of the Georgia statute.  The "special
needs" analysis, they contend, must be viewed through a different lens because
S21-2-140 implicates Georgia's sovereign power, reserved to it under the Tenth
Amendment, to establish qualifications for those who seek state

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                             11
                                       ____

office.  Respondents rely on Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452 (1991), which
                             _______    _________
upheld against federal statutory and Equal Protection Clause challenges
Missouri's mandatory retirement age of 70 for state judges.  The Court found
this age classification reasonable and not barred by the federal legislation. 
See id., at 473.  States, Gregory reaffirmed, enjoy wide latitude to establish
    ____                  _______
conditions of candidacy for state office, but in setting such conditions, they
may not disregard basic constitutional protections.  See id., at 463; McDaniel
                                                         ____         ________
v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978) (invalidating state provision prohibiting members
   ____
of clergy from serving as delegates to state constitutional convention);
Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 414 U. S. 441 (1974) (voiding loyalty oath
_______________________    ________
as a condition of ballot access); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116 (1966) (Georgia
                                  ____    _____
Legislature could not exclude elected representative on ground that his antiwar
statements cast doubt on his ability to take an oath).  We are aware of no
precedent suggesting that a State's power to establish qualifications for state
offices - any more than its sovereign power to prosecute crime - diminishes the
constraints on state action imposed by the Fourth Amendment.  We therefore
reject respondents' invitation to apply in this case a framework extraordinarily
deferential to state measures setting conditions of candidacy for state office. 
Our guides remain Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia.
                  ________ _________     ________
  Turning to those guides, we note, first, that the testing method the Georgia
statute describes is relatively noninvasive; therefore, if the "special need"
showing had been made, the State could not be faulted for excessive intrusion. 
Georgia's statute invokes the drug-testing guidelines applicable to the federal
programs upheld in Skinner and Von Raab.  See Brief for United States as Amicus
                   _______     ________                                  ______
Curiae 20-21; Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 661-662, n. 1.  The State permits a
_______       _________
candidate to provide the urine specimen in the office of his or her private

                                96-126 - OPINION

12                             CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

physician; and the results of the test are given first to the candidate, who
controls further dissemination of the report.  Because the State has effectively
limited the invasiveness of the testing procedure, we concentrate on the core
issue: Is the certification requirement warranted by a special need?
  Our precedents establish that the proffered special need for drug testing must
be substantial - important enough to override the individual's acknowledged
privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal
requirement of individualized suspicion.  See supra, at 7-11.  Georgia has
                                              _______
failed to show, in justification of S21-2-140, a special need of that kind.
  Respondents' defense of the statute rests primarily on the incompatibility of
unlawful drug use with holding high state office.  The statute is justified,
respondents contend, because the use of illegal drugs draws into question an
official's judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of public
functions, including antidrug law enforcement efforts; and undermines public
confidence and trust in elected officials.  Brief for Respondents 11-18.  The
statute, according to respondents, serves to deter unlawful drug users from
becoming candidates and thus stops them from attaining high state office.  Id.,
                                                                           ____
at 17-18.  Notably lacking in respondents' presentation is any indication of a
concrete danger demanding departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule.
  Nothing in the record hints that the hazards respondents broadly describe are
real and not simply hypothetical for Georgia's polity.  The statute was not
enacted, as counsel for respondents readily acknowledged at oral argument, in
response to any fear or suspicion of drug use by state officials:

   "QUESTION: Is there any indication anywhere in this record that Georgia has a
   particular problem here with State officeholders being drug abusers?

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                             13
                                       ____


   "[COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS]: No, there is no such evidence. . . . and to be
   frank, there is no such problem as we sit here today."  Tr. of Oral Arg. 32. 

See also id., at 31 (counsel for respondents affirms absence of evidence that
         ____
state officeholders in Georgia have drug problems).  A demonstrated problem of
drug abuse, while not in all cases necessary to the validity of a testing
regime, see Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 673-675, would shore up an assertion of
            _________
special need for a suspicionless general search program.  Proof of unlawful drug
use may help to clarify - and to substantiate - the precise hazards posed by
such use.  Thus, the evidence of drug and alcohol use by railway employees
engaged in safety-sensitive tasks in Skinner, see 489 U. S., at 606-608, and the
                                     _______
immediate crisis prompted by a sharp rise in students' use of unlawful drugs in
Vernonia, see 515 U. S., at ___ - ___ (slip op., at 16-17), bolstered the
________
government's and school officials' arguments that drug-testing programs were
warranted and appropriate.
  In contrast to the effective testing regimes upheld in Skinner, Von Raab, and
                                                         _______  ________
Vernonia, Georgia's certification requirement is not well designed to identify
________
candidates who violate antidrug laws.  Nor is the scheme a credible means to
deter illicit drug users from seeking election to state office.  The test date -
to be scheduled by the candidate anytime within 30 days prior to qualifying for
a place on the ballot - is no secret.  As counsel for respondents acknowledged
at oral argument, users of illegal drugs, save for those prohibitively addicted,
could abstain for a pretest period sufficient to avoid detection.  See Tr. of
Oral Arg. 44-46. (Ftnote. 4)  Even if we indulged
                 (Ftnote. 4)

























                    
____________________

   4)  In Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656 (1989), the applicant
   4)     __________________    _________
for promotion or transfer could not know precisely when action would be taken on
the application.  In contrast, the potential candidate knows from the start the
timing of all relevant events.

                                96-126 - OPINION

14                             CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

respondents' argument that one purpose of S21-2-140 might be to detect those
unable so to abstain, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 46, respondents have not shown or
argued that such persons are likely to be candidates for public office in
Georgia.  Moreover, respondents have offered no reason why ordinary law
enforcement methods would not suffice to apprehend such addicted individuals,
should they appear in the limelight of a public stage.  Section 21-2-140, in
short, is not needed and cannot work to ferret out lawbreakers, and respondents
barely attempt to support the statute on that ground.
  Respondents and the United States as amicus curiae rely most heavily on our
                                       ______________
decision in Von Raab, which sustained a drug-testing program for Customs Service
            _________
officers prior to promotion or transfer to certain high-risk positions, despite
the absence of any documented drug abuse problem among Service employees.  489
U. S., at 660; see Brief for Respondents 12-14; Brief for United States as
Amicus Curiae 18; see also 73 F. 3d, at 1546.  The posts in question in Von Raab
______________                                                          ________
directly involved drug interdiction or otherwise required the Service member to
carry a firearm.  See 489 U. S., at 670 ("Government has a compelling interest
in ensuring that front-line interdiction personnel are physically fit, and have
unimpeachable integrity and judgment."); id., at 670-671 ("[T]he public should
                                         ____
not bear the risk that employees who may suffer from impaired perception and
judgment will be promoted to positions where they may need to employ deadly
force.").
  Hardly a decision opening broad vistas for suspicionless searches, Von Raab
                                                                     ________
must be read in its unique context.  As the Customs Service reported in
announcing the testing program, "[Customs employees], more than any other
Federal workers, are routinely

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                             15
                                       ____

exposed to the vast network of organized crime that is inextricably tied to
illegal drug use."  National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F. 2d
                    _________________________________    ________
170, 173 (CA5 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd in part, vacated
in part, 489 U. S. 656 (1989).  We stressed that "[d]rug interdiction ha[d]
become the agency's primary enforcement mission," id., at 660, and that the
                                                  ____
employees in question would have "access to vast sources of valuable
contraband," id., at 669.  Furthermore, Customs officers "ha[d] been the targets
             __
of bribery by drug smugglers on numerous occasions," and several had succumbed
to the temptation.  Ibid.
                    ____
  Respondents overlook a telling difference between Von Raab and Georgia's
                                                    ________
candidate drug-testing program.  In Von Raab it was "not feasible to subject
                                    ________
employees [required to carry firearms or concerned with interdiction of
controlled substances] and their work product to the kind of day-to-day scrutiny
that is the norm in more traditional office environments."  Id., at 674. 
                                                            ____
Candidates for public office, in contrast, are subject to relentless scrutiny -
by their peers, the public, and the press.  Their day-to-day conduct attracts
attention notably beyond the norm in ordinary work environments.
  What is left, after close review of Georgia's scheme, is the image the State
seeks to project.  By requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug
testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. 
The suspicionless tests, according to respondents, signify that candidates, if
elected, will be fit to serve their constituents free from the influence of
illegal drugs.  But Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the
State's elected officials, those officials typically do not perform high-risk,
safety-sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no
interdiction effort.  The need revealed, in short, is symbolic, not "special,"
as that term draws meaning from our case law.  

                                96-126 - OPINION

16                             CHANDLER v. MILLER
                                       ____

  In Von Raab, the Customs Service had defended its officer drug-test program in
     ________
part as a way to demonstrate the agency's commitment to enforcement of the law. 
See Brief for United States in Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, O. T. 1988, No.
                               __________________    ________
86-1879, pp. 35-36.  The Von Raab Court, however, did not rely on that
                         ________
justification.  Indeed, if a need of the "set a good example" genre were
sufficient to overwhelm a Fourth Amendment objection, then the care this Court
took to explain why the needs in Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia ranked as
                                 __________________     _________
"special" wasted many words in entirely unnecessary, perhaps even misleading,
elaborations.
  In a pathmarking dissenting opinion, Justice Brandeis recognized the
importance of teaching by example: "Our Government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher.  For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its
example."  Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928).  Justice
           ________    _____________
Brandeis explained in Olmstead why the Government set a bad example when it
                      ________
introduced in a criminal proceeding evidence obtained through an unlawful
Government wiretap:

   "[I]t is . . . immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. 
   Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when
   the Government's purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally
   alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest
   dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-
   meaning but without understanding."  Id., at 479.
                                        __

However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes
personal privacy for a symbol's sake.  The Fourth Amendment shields society
against that state action.

                                96-126 - OPINION

                               CHANDLER v. MILLER                             17
                                       ____

                                       III
  We note, finally, matters this opinion does not treat.  Georgia's singular
drug test for candidates is not part of a medical examination designed to
provide certification of a candidate's general health, and we express no opinion
on such examinations.  Nor do we touch on financial disclosure requirements,
which implicate different concerns and procedures.  See, e.g., Barry v. City of
                                                         ____  _____    _______
New York, 712 F. 2d 1554 (CA2 1983) (upholding city's financial disclosure law
_________
for elected and appointed officials, candidates for city office, and certain
city employees); Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F. 2d 1119 (CA5 1978) (upholding
                 ______    ________
Florida's financial disclosure requirements for certain public officers,
candidates, and employees).  And we do not speak to drug testing in the private
sector, a domain unguarded by Fourth Amendment constraints.  See United States
                                                                 _____________
v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984). 
   ________
  We reiterate, too, that where the risk to public safety is substantial and
real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as
"reasonable" - for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to
courts and other official buildings.  See  Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 674-676, and
                                           _________
n. 3.  But where, as in this case, public safety is not genuinely in jeopardy,
the Fourth Amendment precludes the suspicionless search, no matter how
conveniently arranged.

                                  *     *     *
  For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit is
                                                                       Reversed.
                                                                       _________