Ferguson and others v city of

In this case, however, law enforcement officials were intimately involved in creating and implementing MUSC's policy: women who tested positive for cocaine were arrested and prosecuted, or threatened with these consequences, in case after case.

Ortega, U. While the ultimate goal of the program may well have been to get the women in question into substance abuse treatment and off drugs, the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes in order to reach that goal.

Imagine if the tides were turned, and the state began testing men of child-bearing age for illegal drug use because they did not have annual physicals or had a history of substance abuse.

Pregnant women, on the other hand, have been arrested or threatened with arrest for consuming not just illegal substances, such as cocaine, but legal substances as well.

Nothing in U. The text of the relevant finding, made in the context of petitioners' now abandoned Title VI claim, reads as follows: "The policy was applied in all maternity departments at MUSC.

Previously known drug or alcohol abuse "9.

ferguson v charleston majority opinion

The dissent further argues that our holding "leaves law enforcement officials entirely in the dark as to when they can use incriminating evidence obtained from 'trusted' sources. Since I conclude it was not necessary and since no one contends that the taking 98 II I think it clear, therefore, that there is no basis for saying that obtaining of the urine sample was unconstitutional.

Rule Civ.

Ferguson v. city of charleston quimbee

Kosofsky eds. Under these circumstances, while the policy may well have served legitimate needs unrelated to law enforcement, it had 89 as well a penal character with a far greater connection to law enforcement than other searches sustained under our special needs rationale. In the ensuing discussion, however, I shall assume contrary to legal precedent that the taking of the urine sample was either because of the patients' necessitous circumstances, or because of failure to disclose that the urine would be tested for drugs, or because of failure to disclose that the results of the test would be given to the police coerced. Punishing pregnant women for drug use sets the state on a slippery slope. In Chandler, however, we did not simply accept the State's invocation of a "special need. The fact that the women neither knew of nor consented to the drug screens made this case different from the other cases in which the Court had applied the special needs doctrine. Other than the provisions describing the substance abuse treatment to be offered to women who tested positive, the policy made no mention of any change in the prenatal care of such patients, nor did it prescribe any special treatment for the newborns. Arizona, U. He organized the initial meetings, decided who would participate, and issued the invitations, in which he described his plan to prosecute women who tested positive for cocaine while pregnant. If prosecuting authorities then adopt legitimate procedures to discover this information and prosecution follows, that ought not to invalidate the testing. In my view, it plainly does not. The beginning point ought to be to acknowledge the legitimacy of the State's interest in fetal life and of the grave risk to the life and health of the fetus, and later the child, caused by cocaine ingestion. Code Ann. IV prohibiting the "Intelligence Community['s]" use of journalists as agents. Miranda v.

In looking to the programmatic purpose, we consider all the available evidence in order to determine the relevant primary purpose. That is not responsive. The searches were conducted only at MUSC, the one hospital in Charleston where the patient population was predominately low-income and African-American.

Rated 7/10 based on 99 review
Download
Ferguson v. City of Charleston