1. Ferguson v. Charleston Aaron Leavitt Law, Values, and Public Policy Spring Semester 2002

2. Situation  Fall of 1988- Hospital employees concerned about drug use among pregnant women  1989- Hospital starts drug testing  Positive testers offered drug counseling – If they refused, they were arrested  Lawsuit filed by women who were arrested – Claimed tests violated 4 th Amendment

3. 4 th Amendment  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

4. District Court  Instructed jury to find for petitioners unless they had consented  Jury found in favor of the hospital  Petitioners appeal to 4 th Circuit Court

5. 4 th Circuit Court of Appeals  Affirmed the district court’s decision – Did not consider the consent question – Found that searches were reasonable due to “special needs”  Petitioners appeal to Supreme Court

6. Supreme Court  Case argued 10/4/2000  Decision in favor of petitioners delivered 3/21/2001 – Majority: Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer – Concurring: Kennedy – Dissenting: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas

7. Majority Opinion  “Special needs” should not apply in this case – More of an invasion of privacy in this case  Violated 4 th Amendment

8. Concurring Opinion  Did not agree with majority in respect to special needs – Believed all such cases had turned upon policy’s ultimate goal  Concurred because of the routine inclusion of law enforcement – No other special needs cases had included law enforcement to the extent that Ferguson had

9. Dissenting Opinion  Argued that search was consensual and therefore not violating 4 th Amendment – Argued also that even if searches were unconstitutional, “special needs” did apply due to District Court’s finding

10. In The End  Case remanded back to 4 th Circuit to consider issue of consent  Popular Opinion- Hospital in the wrong, should not have drug tested the women

11. Things to Consider  What was the main purpose of the drug testing?  Were the searches consensual?  Was this a case of racial discrimination?