Chandler v. Miller, 96126

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGINSBURG
Citation117 S.Ct. 1295,520 U.S. 305,137 L.Ed.2d 513
Docket Number96126
Decision Date15 April 1997
PartiesWalker L. CHANDLER, et al., Petitioners, v. Zell D. MILLER, Governor of Georgia, et al

520 U.S. 305
117 S.Ct. 1295
137 L.Ed.2d 513

Walker L. CHANDLER, et al., Petitioners,

v.

Zell D. MILLER, Governor of Georgia, et al.

No. 96-126.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Jan. 14, 1997.
Decided April 15, 1997.
Syllabus *

A Georgia statute requires candidates for designated state offices to certify that they have taken a urinalysis drug test within 30 days prior to qualifying for nomination or election and that the test result was negative. Petitioners, Libertarian Party nominees for state offices subject to the statute's requirements, filed this action in the District Court about one month before the deadline for submission of the certificates. Naming as defendants the Governor and two officials involved in the statute's administration, petitioners asserted, inter alia, that the drug tests violated their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The District Court denied petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction and later entered final judgment for respondents. Relying on this Court's precedents sustaining drug-testing programs for student athletes, Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. ____, ____, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2396-2397, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, Customs Service employees, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 659, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 1387, 103 L.Ed.2d 685, and railway employees, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 608-613, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1408-1411, 103 L.Ed.2d 639, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court accepted as settled law that the tests were searches, but reasoned that, as was true of the drug-testing programs at issue in Skinner and Von Raab, the statute served "special needs,'' interests other than the ordinary needs of law enforcement. Balancing the individual's privacy expectations against the State's interest in the drug-testing program, the court held the statute, as applied to petitioners, not inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Held: Georgia's requirement that candidates for state office pass a drug test does not fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches. Pp. ____-____.

(a) It is uncontested that Georgia's drug-testing requirement, imposed by law and enforced by state officials, effects a search within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The pivotal question here is whether the searches are reasonable. To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. See Vernonia, 515 U.S., at ____, 115 S.Ct., at 2391. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.'' See Skinner, 489 U.S., at 619, 109 S.Ct., at 1414. When such "special needs'' are alleged, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. See Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 665-666, 109 S.Ct., at 1390-1391. In evaluating Georgia's ballot-access, drug-testing statute-a measure plainly not tied to individualized suspicion-the Eleventh Circuit sought to balance the competing interests in line with this Court's precedents most immediately in point: Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia. Pp. ____-____.

(b) These precedents remain the guides for assessing the validity of the Georgia statute despite respondents' invitation to apply a framework extraordinarily deferential to state measures setting conditions of candidacy for state office. No precedent suggests that a State's sovereign power to establish qualifications for state offices diminishes the constraints on state action imposed by the Fourth Amendment. Pp. ____-____.

(c) Georgia's testing method is relatively noninvasive; therefore, if the "special need'' showing had been made, the State could not be faulted for excessive intrusion. However, Georgia has failed to show a special need that is substantial-important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion. Respondents contend that unlawful drug use is incompatible with holding high state office because such drug use draws into question an official's judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of public functions, including antidrug law enforcement efforts; and undermines public confidence and trust in elected officials. Notably lacking in respondents' presentation is any indication of a concrete danger demanding departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. The statute was not enacted, as respondents concede, in response to any fear or suspicion of drug use by state officials. A demonstrated problem of drug abuse, while not in all cases necessary to the validity of a testing regime, see Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 673-675, 109 S.Ct., at 1395, would shore up an assertion of special need for a suspicionless general search program, see Skinner, 489 U.S., at 606-608, 109 S.Ct., at 1407-1408, Vernonia, 515 U.S., at ____, 115 S.Ct., at ____. In contrast to the effective testing regimes upheld in Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia, Georgia's certification requirement is not well designed to identify candidates who violate antidrug laws and is not a credible means to deter illicit drug users from seeking state office. The test date is selected by the candidate, and thus all but the prohibitively addicted could abstain for a pretest period sufficient to avoid detection. Respondents' reliance on this Court's decision in Von Raab, which sustained a drug-testing program for Customs Service officers prior to promotion or transfer to certain high-risk positions, despite the absence of any documented drug abuse problem among Service employees, 489 U.S., at 660, 109 S.Ct., at 1388, is misplaced. Hardly a decision opening broad vistas for suspicionless searches, Von Raab must be read in its unique context. Drug interdiction had become the agency's primary enforcement mission. The covered posts directly involved drug interdiction or otherwise required Customs officers to carry firearms, the employees would have access to vast sources of valuable contraband, and officers had been targets of and some had succumbed to bribery by drug smugglers. Moreover, it was not feasible to subject the Customs Service employees to the kind of day-to-day scrutiny that is the norm in more traditional office environments. In telling contrast, the day-to-day conduct of candidates for public office attracts attention notably beyond the norm in ordinary work environments. What is left, after close review of Georgia's scheme, is that the State seeks to display its commitment to the struggle against drug abuse. But Georgia asserts no evidence of a drug problem among the State's elected officials, those officials typically do not perform high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks, and the required certification immediately aids no interdiction effort. The need revealed is symbolic, not "special.'' The Fourth Amendment shields society from state action that diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake. Pp. ____-____.

(d) The Court expresses no opinion on medical examinations designed to provide certification of a candidate's general health or on financial disclosure requirements, and it does not speak to drug testing in the private sector, a domain unguarded by Fourth Amendment constraints. P. 1305.

73 F.3d 1543, reversed.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Fourth Amendment requires government to respect " [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' This restraint on government conduct generally bars officials from undertaking a search or seizure absent individualized suspicion. Searches conducted without grounds for suspicion of particular individuals have been upheld, however, in "certain limited circumstances.'' See Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 668, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 1392, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989). These circumstances include brief stops for questioning or observation at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 545-550, 566-567, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3077-3079, 3086-3087, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976), or at a sobriety checkpoint, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 447, 455, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 2483-2484, 2487-2488, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990), and administrative inspections in "closely regulated'' businesses, New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 703-704, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 2644-2645, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987).

Georgia requires candidates for designated state offices to certify that they have taken a drug test and that the test result was negative. Ga.Code Ann. §21-2-140 (1993) (hereinafter §21-2-140). We confront in this case the question whether that requirement ranks among the limited circumstances in which suspicionless searches are warranted. Relying on this Court's precedents sustaining drug-testing programs for student athletes, customs employees, and railway employees, see Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. ____, ____, ___, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2389, 2396-2397, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (random drug testing of students who participate in interscholastic sports); Von Raab, 489 U.S., at 659, 109 S.Ct., at 1387 (drug tests for United States Customs Service employees who seek transfer or promotion to certain positions); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 608-613, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1408-1411, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (drug and alcohol tests for railway employees involved in train accidents and for those who violate particular safety rules), the United States Court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
395 practice notes
  • Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., Case No. 12–20863–CV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 16 Noviembre 2012
    ...47–48, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (acknowledging the “validity of ... searches at places like airports”); Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997) (noting that “searches now routine at airports” are reasonable). An airport security screening s......
  • State v. Hamm, No. W2016-01282-SC-R11-CD
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 2019
    ...cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity."); see also Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997) (stating that officials are generally barred "from undertaking a search or seizure absent individuali......
  • Aiken v. Nixon, No. 1:01-CV-73.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 30 Septiembre 2002
    ...with the right to be free from `unreasonable government intrusions into their legitimate expectations of privacy.'" Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 1298, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997)(quoting United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 7, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977)); see als......
  • State v. Griffith, No. 35848-8-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 31 Diciembre 2019
    ...reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller , 520 U.S. 305, 313, 117 S. Ct. 1295, 137 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1997). But in 1967, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Camara introduced what came to be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
392 cases
  • Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., Case No. 12–20863–CV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 16 Noviembre 2012
    ...47–48, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (acknowledging the “validity of ... searches at places like airports”); Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997) (noting that “searches now routine at airports” are reasonable). An airport security screening s......
  • State v. Hamm, No. W2016-01282-SC-R11-CD
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 2019
    ...cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity."); see also Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 308, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997) (stating that officials are generally barred "from undertaking a search or seizure absent individuali......
  • Aiken v. Nixon, No. 1:01-CV-73.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 30 Septiembre 2002
    ...with the right to be free from `unreasonable government intrusions into their legitimate expectations of privacy.'" Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 1298, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997)(quoting United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 7, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977)); see als......
  • State v. Griffith, No. 35848-8-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 31 Diciembre 2019
    ...reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Chandler v. Miller , 520 U.S. 305, 313, 117 S. Ct. 1295, 137 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1997). But in 1967, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Camara introduced what came to be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • THE GOVERNMENT IS IN YOUR DIRECT MESSAGES: DOES NEW LEGISLATION ALLOW TECH COMPANIES TO SEARCH YOUR ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS?
    • United States
    • The Journal of High Technology Law Vol. 22 Nbr. 2, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...warrant and probable cause requirement by the substantial government interest in stifling the drug trade). But see Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 318 (1997) (holding that drug testing program for state office candidates in Georgia was invalid where the government need was not substantial......
  • X-Rated X-Ray Invades Privacy Rights
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Policy Review Nbr. 12-4, December 2001
    • 1 Diciembre 2001
    ...October6, 2001, from http://www.as-e.com/inthenews/smugglers.htmlCamera v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997).Duke, S. (2001). The drug war on the Constitution. Retrieved April 27, 2001, fromhttp://www.cato.org//realaudio/drugwar/papers/duke.htmlFlo......
  • Drug Testing in the Public Sector: An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenbloom's Competing‐Perspectives Model
    • United States
    • Public Administration Review Nbr. 61-4, July 2001
    • 1 Julio 2001
    ...of pri-vacy due to their involvement in athletics.4In the most recent drug-testing ruling as of this writing,Chandler v. Miller (117 S.Ct. 1295 [1997]), the SupremeCourt struck down the drug testing of political candidates.The Court ruled that a Georgia law requiring political can-didates t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT