Re: Special Needs Doctrine
I happened to have this in my S&S case list notes, believe it or not, so it rang a bell with me when you listed it. I won't comment on the other choices, but you ARE correct about D:
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. 6-17.
The high court reversed the 11th, who ruled thus:
"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."
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...96-126.ZS.html