Ferguson v. City of Charleston
532 U.S. 67 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state hospital's performance of a diagnostic test on a patient without consent for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence of criminal conduct for law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment. Such a program does not fall under the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement because its immediate objective is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.
Facts:
- In 1988, staff at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), a public hospital, became concerned about cocaine use by pregnant patients.
- Initially, MUSC screened suspected patients and referred those who tested positive for counseling, but this approach proved ineffective.
- In 1989, after learning police in another city were arresting pregnant drug users, MUSC's general counsel contacted Charleston Solicitor Charles Condon to offer cooperation in prosecuting these women.
- Solicitor Condon formed a task force with representatives from MUSC, the police, and social services to create a formal policy.
- The task force adopted "Policy M-7," which established nine criteria for testing pregnant patients' urine for cocaine, often without their knowledge.
- The policy specified chain-of-custody procedures for the urine samples to ensure they could be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.
- Under the policy, positive test results were reported to the police, and patients faced arrest and prosecution for crimes such as drug possession and unlawful child neglect.
- Ten women, the petitioners, were tested under this policy at MUSC, tested positive for cocaine, and were subsequently arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Ten women who were arrested under the policy sued the City of Charleston, law enforcement officials, and MUSC in the United States District Court.
- The plaintiffs alleged the warrantless, nonconsensual drug tests were unconstitutional searches under the Fourth Amendment.
- The District Court rejected the defendants' 'special needs' defense, but submitted the factual question of consent to the jury.
- A jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding that the women had consented to the searches.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment for the defendants (appellees) but on different grounds, holding that the searches were reasonable under the 'special needs' exception and therefore did not reach the issue of consent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' holding on the 'special needs' issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state hospital's policy of performing non-consensual drug tests on pregnant patients for the primary purpose of collecting evidence for law enforcement violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, the state hospital's policy violates the Fourth Amendment. A search conducted for law enforcement purposes must comply with the warrant requirement, and the "special needs" exception does not apply when the primary purpose of the search is general crime control. The Court distinguished this case from prior "special needs" precedents involving drug testing of railway employees or students, where the primary purpose was safety or discipline, not law enforcement, and the results were not turned over to the police. Here, the central and indispensable feature of the Charleston policy was the use of law enforcement to coerce patients into treatment. The extensive involvement of police and prosecutors in the policy's design and day-to-day administration demonstrated that its immediate objective was to generate evidence for law enforcement, not to provide medical treatment. While the ultimate goal may have been benign, the direct purpose was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, which is insufficient to justify a departure from the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the search procedure cannot be sustained under the Fourth Amendment. While disagreeing with the majority's distinction between a program's "immediate purpose" and "ultimate goal," the policy is unconstitutional because of the substantial and systemic involvement of law enforcement in its design and implementation. No prior special needs precedent has sanctioned the routine inclusion of police, arrests, and the threat of prosecution as an integral part of achieving the program's objectives. The hospital acted as an institutional arm of law enforcement, which created a penal character far more connected to law enforcement than any search previously sustained under the special needs rationale. The use of handcuffs, arrests, and prosecutions cannot be sustained under the Court's previous cases concerning mandatory testing.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, the policy does not violate the Fourth Amendment. First, there was no unconsented search because the patients voluntarily provided urine samples for medical purposes; the subsequent testing and reporting of results to police does not constitute a new Fourth Amendment wrong. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily entrust to a third party. Second, even if the taking of the sample was an unconsented search, it would be validated by the special-needs doctrine. The District Court found that the policy's goal was to facilitate treatment and protect the mother and child, which is a clear special need beyond normal law enforcement. The addition of a law-enforcement purpose to a legitimate medical purpose does not destroy the applicability of the special-needs doctrine, as shown in cases like Griffin v. Wisconsin, where a probation officer worked with police.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the Fourth Amendment's "special needs" doctrine. It establishes that a program's primary purpose cannot be general crime control, even if its ultimate goal is a beneficent one like public health. The Court's focus on the 'immediate objective' and the level of law enforcement entanglement creates a critical test for future warrantless, suspicionless search programs. This ruling protects patient privacy from law enforcement intrusion in medical settings and reinforces the line between public health functions and criminal investigation, requiring the government to meet a higher constitutional standard when those lines are blurred.
Unlock the full brief for Ferguson v. City of Charleston