Opinion ID: 795867
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The County's administration of its welfare system is a special need

Text: 24 In Griffin, the Supreme Court examined whether the State's operation of its probation system was a special need that justified the warrantless search of a probationer's home, based on reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of contraband. Griffin, 483 U.S. at 872, 107 S.Ct. 3164. The Court held that the operation of a probation system was a valid special need, explaining that the system worked towards genuine rehabilitation through intensive supervision and that a warrant requirement would interfere to an appreciable degree. Id. at 873-76, 107 S.Ct. 3164. 25 More recently, in Earls, the Court reaffirmed its special needs reasoning, holding that a public school's policy of requiring suspicionless drug testing for student athletes was justified in light of the school's special need to prevent and deter drug use among its students. Earls, 536 U.S. at 838, 122 S.Ct. 2559. The Court emphasized that the searches were not conducted for law enforcement purposes, and explained that the special need justified the intrusion on the student's privacy without individualized suspicion. Id. at 829, 122 S.Ct. 2559. 26 In Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S.Ct. 1281, 149 L.Ed.2d 205 (2001), however, the Court held that a public hospital's policy of identifying and testing mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth was not justified under the special needs doctrine because the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes. Id. at 83, 121 S.Ct. 1281 (emphasis in the original). The Court explained that the central and indispensable feature of the policy from its inception was the use of law enforcement to coerce the patients into substance abuse treatment, and concluded that the purpose actually served by the [ ] searches is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control. Id. at 81, 121 S.Ct. 1281 (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Ferguson turned on the fact that the searches at issue were conducted for general law enforcement purposes. See id. The Court emphasized that while the drug testing program partially served a non-criminal purpose, the program's efficacy was ultimately tied to the successful prosecution of mothers whose children tested positive for drugs. Id. at 82-84, 121 S.Ct. 1281. In Wyman, however, the Court specifically noted that home visits in the welfare context primarily serve the administrative function of eligibility verification, which is not a general law enforcement purpose. Wyman, 400 U.S. at 326, 91 S.Ct. 381. As discussed supra, the primary purpose of the Project 100% home visits is to verify eligibility for welfare benefits. While there may be a fine line between verifying eligibility and investigating fraud, the record here supports that the visits are indeed used primarily for verification and prevention purposes. Since the program's inception in 1997, not a single criminal prosecution for welfare fraud has resulted from inconsistencies uncovered during a Project 100% home visit. While investigators are required to report evidence of criminal violations for potential prosecution, this does not make the home visits criminal investigations. See Wyman, 400 U.S. at 317, 91 S.Ct. 381. Moreover, unlike in Ferguson, 532 U.S. at 82-84, 121 S.Ct. 1281, Project 100%'s efficacy is not dependent upon the prosecution of suspected welfare fraud cases. 28 Therefore, because the underlying purpose of the home visits is to verify eligibility for welfare benefits, and not for general law enforcement purposes, we conclude that San Diego County has articulated a valid special need. 29