Parents required to submit to deaden with narcotics gesting viewed like a condition of their child’s juvenile probation order violated the Fourth Amendment. The parents had a reduced privacy interest when they lived with a probationer, but not that reduced. The especial needs exception also did not permit such a search. State v. Jane Doe II (In the Interest of Jane Doe I), 2008 Ida. App. LEXIS 139 (November 13, 2008):

We thus close that both a strong State interest and a laudable purpose are served by the officer’s order here compelling the parents to submit to drug testing. Nevertheless, we likewise conclude that the special needs exception to the warrant requirement does not legitimize the order. We come to this determination based largely upon the most analogous United States Supreme Court decision applying the special needs doctrine, Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001). The Court there considered a program developed by hospital and law enforcement authorities to instigate pregnant drug abusers to embark into substance abuse treatment for the protection of their fetuses. Concerns about the rising number of cocaine-using great with child women being seen at a Charleston hospital led hospital officials, law enforcement, and other government authorities to take to one’s self a protocol to “identify/assist pregnant patients suspected of drug abuse.” It provided that the hospital would test a patient since cocaine through a urine drug screen if she met one or more of nine criteria indicative of drug abuse. The policy supposing for tuition and referral to substance abuse treatment for patients who tested direct. A threat of law enforcement intervention provided an inducement for the patients to take . such treatment. Patients who refused treatment or missed any stipulation through a substance abuse counselor would have existence arrested.

Мой блог находят по следующим фразам