Special Needs and Special Deference: Suspicionless Civil Searches in the Modern Regulatory State
Fabio Arcila, Jr.
Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
Administrative Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, p. 1223, 2004
This article discusses the Fourth Amendment's "special needs" principle, which has become the dominant analytic framework for judging the constitutionality of suspicionless civil searches. When a special need beyond the normal need of law enforcement exists, courts determine Fourth Amendment reasonableness by balancing the competing governmental and private interests at stake. Though sympathetic to the goal of providing more adequate protections against governmental overreaching, the article posits that current academic literature, which is overwhelmingly critical of the special needs principle, is misguided, and the article offers a new paradigm - a deferential model - that may better explain this jurisprudence.
Much of the critical literature operates from the premise that suspicionless civil searches are fundamentally antithetical to the Fourth Amendment. However, the historical record is more nuanced than critics acknowledge, and perhaps reflects the Framers' understanding that suspicionless civil searches can be necessary components of regulatory regimes. Moreover, commentators have not fully appreciated the necessities of the modern regulatory state and its need to conduct suspicionless civil searches.
The article suggests that the Court's special needs jurisprudence might be better understood as an effort to create a sliding-scale deferential review model for suspicionless civil search cases. Viewed from this perspective, a greater degree of predictability may be available in suspicionless civil search cases by considering the degree of correlation between the government's asserted special need and the predefined regulatory objective at issue. The cases seem to support more deferential judicial review when a strong correlation exists, and less deferential review as the correlation becomes weaker. The article closes by questioning the wisdom of such an approach, given the separation of powers issues that it raises concerning whether the executive, legislature, or judicial branch will have primacy over determining the constitutionality of suspicionless civil searches.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 40
Keywords: Fourth Amendment, search, search & seizure, special need, regulatory search, suspicionless, civil search
JEL Classification: K23, K20, K40, K30, K41
Date posted: February 14, 2005 ; Last revised: July 22, 2013