Author Question: Explain the balancing of interests associated with administrative justification. What will be an ... (Read 52 times)

kellyjaisingh · **on:** Aug 17, 2018

Explain the balancing of interests associated with administrative justification.

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Summarize the conflicting perspectives on the relationship between the warrant and reasonableness clauses of the Fourth Amendment.

What will be an ideal response?

itsakadoozi · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 17, 2018

Answer to Question 1

In Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), the Court noted that such searches are permissible, so long as reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling. In other words, administrative searches should not be conducted arbitrarily or with selective enforcement.

A good example of the balancing approach taken in administrative searches is Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). In that case, the Court considered a school policy that required athletes to submit to random urinalysis for drugs. The Court allowed the search because it was not geared toward any particular individual. Further, the Court reasoned that athletes in public schools enjoy a lesser expectation of privacy because they must participate in other examinations, they dress together in the locker room, and they participate in the sports voluntarily. In reaching its decision, the Court cited the government interest in preventing drug use by our Nation's school children. This was a controversial decision, as it seemed to reduce the need for justification set forth explicitly in the Fourth Amendment.

Answer to Question 2

The Fourth Amendment contains two basic clauses: The reasonableness clause, which proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures, followed by the warrant clause, which says that no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Some have argued that the warrant clause gives meaning to the reasonableness clause, so that any search conducted without a warrant is deemed unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutional. Justice Frankfurter took this position in United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950): What is the test of reason which makes a search reasonable?There must be a warrant to permit search, barring only inherent limitations upon that requirement when there is a good excuse for not getting a search warrant. This is the warrant requirement interpretation, which prefers that a neutral magistrate come between the officer conducting the search and the citizen targeted by the search.

Others have argued that the reasonableness clause and the warrant clause should be read separately. Their position is that the reasonableness of a search should not depend on whether a warrant was obtained or on whether there was a good excuse for not obtaining a warrant. Instead, they believe that the courts should focus on the factual circumstances justifying the search. They also believe, specifically, that the courts should consider the manner in which the search was executed, not whether a warrant was secured. The main protection offered by the Fourth Amendment should lie, then, not with a judge prior to the search but with the courts after the search. In this view, the courts should reflect on what occurred and seek to determine whether the search was reasonable at the time it was actually conducted.