Citation network
Ferguson Vs. Charleston
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 21, 2001
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 67 (2001) October Term, 2000 Syllabus Ferguson Et Al. V. CitySearch
-
Moreover, the urine tests at issue were indisputably searches within that Amendment's meaning. Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
tests fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches. See Chandler v. MillerSearch
-
see also Skinner, Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
the patients are fully informed about their constitutional rights, as standards of knowing waiver require. Cf. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
held that the ingestion of cocaine during the third trimester of pregnancy constitutes criminal child neglect. Whitner v. SouthSearch
-
S id., at 477, the majority applied the balancing test used in Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
terminology in O'Connor v. OrtegaSearch
-
U. S. 709 , 720 (1987) (plurality opinion), and Griffin v. WisconsinSearch
-
other than the normal need for law enforcement provide sufficient justification. See also Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. ActonSearch
-
tests conducted by those staff members were indisputably searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment even though the results were not reported to the police, see, e. g., Chandler v. MillerSearch
-
Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
In three of those cases, we sustained drug tests for railway employees involved in train accidents, Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
for United States Customs Service employees seeking promotion to certain sensitive positions, Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
and for high school students participating in interscholastic sports, Vernonia School Dist. J, 7 J v. ActonSearch
-
In the fourth case, we struck down such testing for candidates for designated state offices as unreasonable. Chandler v. MillerSearch
-
resolve the legal and factual issues in the first instance, and we express no view on those issues. See, e. g., Glover v. UnitedSearch
-
from the State's general interest in law enforcement.15 This point was em- receiving needed medical care. Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
U. S., at 341, n. 7. The dissent, however, relying on Griffin v. WisconsinSearch
-
probationers have a lesser expectation of privacy than the public at large. Id., at 874-875. 16 In Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
a) (1987)). Similarly, in Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
were, as respondents admitted, essential to the program's success. 21 Accordingly, this case differs from New York v. BurgerSearch
-
have applied a balancing test to determine Fourth Amendment reasonableness. See, e. g., Michigan Dept. of State Police v. SitzSearch
-
See Indianapolis v. EdmondSearch
-
patients are fully informed about their constitutional rights, as standards of knowing waiver require.24 Cf. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
our special needs cases have turned upon what the majority terms the policy's ultimate goal. For example, in Skinner v. RailwaySearch
-
Id., at 620. In Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
Id., at 666. In Vernonia School Dist. J,7J v. ActonSearch
-
i. e., part of the property) of the person who has passed and abandoned it. Cf. California v. GreenwoodSearch
-
Ante, at 76, n. 9. But in all of those cases, the urine was obtained involuntarily. See Chandler v. MillerSearch
-
not suffice, even without reference to the special-needs doctrine. The Court's analogizing of this case to Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
represented, and giving that material or information derived from it to the police, is not unconstitutional. In Hoffa v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. WhiteSearch
-
to catch a criminal in the act, and those meant only to gather evidence of prior wrongdoing. See, e. g., United States v. MillerSearch
-
cf. Illinois v. PerkinsSearch
-
even beyond that, since there does not exist any physician-patient privilege in South Carolina. See, e. g., Peagler v. AtlanticSearch
-
Syllabus Ferguson Et Al. V. CitySearch
-
See Chandler v. MillerSearch
-
Skinner, Treasury Employees v. VonSearch
-
Cf. Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial