Transcript Ferguson v. Charleston

Ferguson v. Charleston
Aaron Leavitt
Law, Values, and
Public Policy
Spring Semester 2002
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 4th Amendment
4th Amendment
 “The right of the people to be secure in
their persons…against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be
violated.”
District Court
 Instructed jury to find for petitioners unless
they had consented
 Jury found in favor of the hospital
 Petitioners appeal to 4th Circuit Court
4th 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
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
Majority Opinion
 “Special needs” should not apply in this
case
– More of an invasion of privacy in this case
 Violated 4th Amendment
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
Dissenting Opinion
 Argued that search was consensual and
therefore not violating 4th Amendment
– Argued also that even if searches were
unconstitutional, “special needs” did apply due
to District Court’s finding
In The End
 Case remanded back to 4th Circuit to
consider issue of consent
 Popular Opinion- Hospital in the wrong,
should not have drug tested the women
Things to Consider
 What was the main purpose of the drug
testing?
 Were the searches consensual?
 Was this a case of racial discrimination?