Opinion ID: 2507169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal special needs exception

Text: ¶ 26 Before addressing whether we have adopted or will adopt such a special needs exception, it is helpful to briefly examine the federal exception to understand both its requirements and its breadth. The United States Supreme Court has held there are certain circumstances when a search or seizure is directed toward `special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement and the warrant and probable-cause requirement [are] impracticable.' Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987) (quoting T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 351, 105 S.Ct. 733 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment)). [12] For there to be a special need, not only must there be some interest beyond normal law enforcement but also any evidence garnered from the search or seizure should not be expected to be used in any criminal prosecution against the target of the search or seizure. Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989). [13] The Court has applied such reasoning to administrative searches, [14] border patrols, [15] and prisoners and probationers. [16] ¶ 27 The United States Supreme Court has also held drug testing presents a special need and may be done under certain circumstances without a warrant or individualized suspicion. In Skinner, 489 U.S. at 634, 109 S.Ct. 1402, the Court upheld warrantless and suspicionless blood and urine testing of railroad employees following major train accidents. The Court applied similar reasoning in Von Raab when it held immigration officials may be subjected to random drug testing. Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989). [17]