NYS Public Health Legal Manual: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys ...

§ 1.60 NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LEGAL MANUAL
the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy, and, on the
other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate
governmental interests.” United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19
(2001), quoting from Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999).
While in the criminal context this balancing test usually requires the
obtaining of a warrant based on a showing of probable cause (except in
certain situations permitting searches made incidental to lawful arrests),
the obtaining of warrants and a showing of probable cause are not indispensable
components of reasonableness in every circumstance. MacWade
v. Kelly, 460 F.3d 260, 268 (2d Cir. 2006). A standard of “reasonable suspicion,”
without the obtaining of a warrant, may be permitted “when a
balance of the governmental and private interest makes such a standard
reasonable.” United States v. Knights, supra, 534 U.S. at 121. Where a
search is not directed at uncovering evidence of a crime, the use of a “reasonable
suspicion” test may satisfy that balance. See Patchogue-Medford
Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education, supra, 70 N.Y.2d at 68-69
[urine test]; Nicholas v. Goord, supra, 430 F.3d at 660 [DNA test]. Cf.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000) [roadblock search
held unreasonable in absence of “individual suspicion of wrongdoing”];
Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 599 (2d Cir. 1999) [holding stricter
constitutional standard required to undertake “investigative examination”
of child rather than “one that is ‘medically indicated’ and designed for
treatment”].
There is, however, a “special needs” exception to the reasonable
suspicion standard. Courts have upheld searches, in a non-criminal
context, that are not based on any suspicion, but that are applied to
everyone, or to those randomly selected, in an effort to achieve a greater
public need. In doing so, courts have balanced (1) the weight and
immediacy of the government interest, (2) the nature of the privacy
interest compromised by the search, (3) the character of the intrusion
imposed by the search, and (4) the efficacy of the search in advancing the
government interest. MacWade v. Kelly, supra, 460 F.3d at 269 [applying
special needs exception in upholding random package searches on
subway platforms]. The courts have applied this “special needs”
exception to non-criminal searches of the body. See Nicholas v. Goord,
supra, 430 F.3d 652 [upholding DNA tests for all convicted felons]. See
also Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education,
30