Drug Policy Opinion: Page 25

Home
Court Opinions
Topics & Themes
  Asset Forfeitures
  Conspiracy
  ›› Drug Policy Opinion
  Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects
  First Amendment
  Justiciability
  Medicinal Marijuana
  Policy Considerations
  Proportionality
  Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
  Searches and Seizures
     Airports
     Borders
     Consent
     Drug Testing
     Dwellings
     Exclusionary Rule
     Grounds for a Search
     Informants
     Mail
     Nuances of Detention
     Personal Items
     Private Action
     Roads and Vehicles
     Tools and Augmentation
     Warrants
  Sentencing and Penalties
Authors
Trivia

Drug Policy Opinion

Statements found in Court opinions regarding illicit substances. Public policy considerations, individual predilections of the Justice writing the opinion, the objective and subjective views on the the drugs, the drug use and the drug war... All of these can be found in this section.

Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› ‹14› ‹15› ‹16› ‹17› ‹18› ‹19› ‹20› ‹21› ‹22› ‹23› ‹24› ‹25› ‹26› ‹27› ‹28› ‹29› ‹30› ‹31› ‹32› ‹33› ‹34›

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
Opinion by: GINSBURG

However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action.

[...]

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting:

Few would doubt that the use of illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs is one of the major problems of our society. Cases before this Court involving drug use extend to numerous occupations... It would take a bolder person than I to say that such widespread drug usage could never extend to candidates for public office such as Governor of Georgia. The Court says that "nothing in the record hints that the hazards respondents broadly describe are real and not simply hypothetical for Georgia's polity." [...] But surely the State need not wait for a drug addict, or one inclined to use drugs illegally, to run for or actually become Governor before it installs a prophylactic mechanism.

[...]

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting:

Under normal Fourth Amendment analysis, the individual's expectation of privacy is an important factor in the equation. But here, the Court perversely relies on the fact that a candidate for office gives up so much privacy -- "candidates for public office ... are subject to relentless scrutiny -- by their peers, the public and the press," [...] -- as a reason for sustaining a Fourth Amendment claim. The Court says, in effect, that the kind of drug test for candidates required by the Georgia law is unnecessary, because the scrutiny to which they are already subjected by reason of their candidacy will enable people to detect any drug use on their part.

[...]

Chandler v. Miller (1997)
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting:

Lest readers expect the holding of this case to be extended to any other case, the Court notes that the drug test here is not a part of a medical examination designed to provide certification of a candidate's general health. [...] It is all but inconceivable that a case involving that sort of requirement could be decided differently than the present case; the same sort of urinalysis would be involved. The only possible basis for distinction is to say that the State has a far greater interest in the candidate's "general health" than it does with respect to his propensity to use illegal drugs. But this is the sort of policy judgment that surely must be left to legislatures, rather than being announced from on high by the Federal Judiciary.

[...]

Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)
Opinion by: STEVENS

In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that police officers are never required to knock and announce their presence when executing a search warrant in a felony drug investigation. [...] We disagree with the court's conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permits a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for this entire category of criminal activity.

[...]