Ferguson v. Charleston Aaron Leavitt Law, Values, and Public Policy Spring Semester 2002
Situation Fall of Hospital employees concerned about drug use among pregnant women 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
4 th 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 4 th Circuit Court
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
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 4 th 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 4 th 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 4 th 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?