Abstract
This Article critically examines the Supreme Court's most recent applications of its "special needs" balancing analysis in a case regarding the drug testing of state candidates for political office. This work contends that the Court deprives us of clear guidance in this area of search and seizure by abandoning the Fourth Amendment's traditional safeguards. Instead, the Court exploits special needs' malleability to reach results it subjectively values, creating an inconsistent line of precedent.
How to Cite
40 Ariz. L. Rev. 73 (1998)
4
Views
1
Downloads