Can the Fourth Amendment Reflect Our True Concerns about the Charleston Policy?
In summary, many people’s objections to the Charleston policy are not primarily procedural – asking whether there was a warrant. Instead, they are substantive – asking whether, even if there was a warrant, we should be screening maternity patients to detect prenatal drug use at all. Can the Fourth Amendment address these substantive concerns? The short answer is “hopefully.” The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” One might think that the seizure of urine, and the search of that urine for cocaine, would represent a blatantly “unreasonable search and seizure” if the drug screen would in fact harm the interests of the unborn, its intended beneficiaries. This conclusion, moreover, would not turn at all on whether the testing was conducted pursuant to a warrant and probable cause. Yet under current law, the “reasonableness” of searches is not generally understood to rest on such considerations. That may be why the parties in this case focused on the absence of
Related Questions
- Do the remarks reflect widespread opposition among the Israeli military to the current policy towards Palestinians?
- What is the Charleston AFBs policy on acquiring property within the highest accident potential of the three zones?
- Can the Fourth Amendment Reflect Our True Concerns about the Charleston Policy?
