SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

therefore subject to less stringent requirements than normally
applicable. (Humphrey v. Appellate Division of the Superior
Court (2002) 29 Cal.4 th 569, 574-575.)
The taking of biological samples from prison inmates, parolees and
probationers for the purpose of completing a federal DNA
database, might qualify as a “special needs” search. (United
States v. Kincade (9 th Cir. 2004) 379 F.3 rd 813, 823-832.)
Search of Luggage in a Subway Facility: Implemented in response
to terrorist attacks on subways in other cities, a program was
designed to deter terrorists from carrying concealed explosives
onto the New York’s subway. The city program established daily
inspection checkpoints at selected subway facilities where officers
searched bags that met size criteria for containing explosives.
Subway riders wishing to avoid a search were required to leave the
station. In a bench trial, the district court found that the program
comported with the Fourth Amendment under the “special needs
doctrine.” On appeal, the court affirmed, finding that the program
was reasonable and therefore constitutional. In particular, the
court found that preventing a terrorist attack on the subway was a
special need, which was weighty in light of recent terrorist attacks
on subway systems in other cities. In addition, the court found that
the disputed program was a reasonably effective deterrent.
Although the searches intruded on a full privacy interest, the court
further found that such intrusion was minimal, particularly as
inspections involved only certain size containers and riders could
decline inspection by leaving the station. (MacWade v. Kelly (2 nd
Cir. 2006) 460 F.3 rd 260.)
The search of a high school student’s pockets based upon a
standard policy that all students who leave and return to the
campus during the school day are subject to search, done to
prevent the introduction of drugs and weapons onto the campus., at
least where the search is very non-intrusive (i.e., the student is not
touched). (In re Sean A. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4 th 182.)
Fish and Game Regulations: A game warden, under authority of
Fish & Game § 1006, who reasonably believes that a person has
recently been fishing or hunting, but lacks reasonable suspicion
that the person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or
regulation, may stop a vehicle in which the person is riding to
demand the person display all fish or game the person has caught
or taken. As an administrative, special needs search, the standard
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
424