Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of a state statute requiring drug tests of all candidates for certain state offices. The case is notable as being the only one in recent years where the Supreme Court has upheld a challenge to a ballot access restriction from members of a third party, in this case the Libertarian Party of Georgia.
In 1990, Georgia enacted a statute[1] which required candidates for designated state office to certify that they had taken a drug test and obtained negative results. The candidate could provide test specimen at a laboratory approved by the state or at the office of the candidate's personal physician. Once a urine sample was obtained, a state-approved laboratory determined whether any of the specified illegal drugs were present and prepared a certificate reporting the test results to the candidate.
Factsedit
In 1994, three Libertarian Party[2] candidates for such state offices statute filed an action in District Court against the governor of Georgia and two other state officials involved in the administration of the statute, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the statute. They alleged that the drug tests required by the statute violated their rights under provisions including the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
District courtedit
The District Court denied the candidates' motion for a preliminary injunction. After the candidates submitted to the drug tests, obtained the required certificates, and appeared on the ballot in the 1994 election, the District Court entered final judgment for the state officials.
Eleventh Circuitedit
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in affirming, expressed the view that with respect to the Fourth Amendment, the state's interests outweighed the privacy intrusion caused by the statute's required certification (73 F.3d 1543).
Opinion of the Courtedit
On certiorari, Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer reversed. The Court noted that while the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits officials from conducting search and seizures without individualized suspicion, there does exist a "closely guarded" category of permissible suspicionless searches and seizures. However, the Court held that the statute's drug-testing requirement did not fit within this category. The Court emphasized that the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial—important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion.
Additionally, the Court found that Georgia failed to show, in justification of Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-140, a special need of that kind. Notably lacking in respondent officials' presentation was any indication of a concrete danger that demanded departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. The statute was not needed and could not work to ferret out lawbreakers, and officials barely attempted to support the statute on that ground. However well meant, the candidate drug test Georgia devised diminished personal privacy for a symbol's sake; state action that is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. In addition to Georgia's failure to provide evidence of a drug problem among its state officials, the Court concluded that even if such a problem did exist, the affected officials would likely not perform the kind of high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks which might justify the statute's proposed incursion on their individual privacy rights. Where, as in this case, public safety was not genuinely jeopardized, the Fourth Amendment precluded a suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged.
Dissentedit
Chief Justice Rehnquist expressed the view that the statute's urinalysis test was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
^Greenhouse, Linda (April 16, 1997). "Supreme Court Strikes Down Drug Testing of Candidates". The New York Times.
External linksedit
Text of Chandler v. Miller, 520U.S. 305 (1997) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaOpenJurist
January 01, 1970
chandler, miller, 1997, case, before, united, states, supreme, court, concerning, constitutionality, under, fourth, amendment, state, statute, requiring, drug, tests, candidates, certain, state, offices, case, notable, being, only, recent, years, where, suprem. Chandler v Miller 520 U S 305 1997 was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the Constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of a state statute requiring drug tests of all candidates for certain state offices The case is notable as being the only one in recent years where the Supreme Court has upheld a challenge to a ballot access restriction from members of a third party in this case the Libertarian Party of Georgia Chandler v MillerSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued January 14 1997Decided April 15 1997Full case nameWalker L Chandler v Zell D Miller Governor of GeorgiaCitations520 U S 305 more 117 S Ct 1295 137 L Ed 2d 513 1997 U S LEXIS 2505 65 U S L W 4243 145 A L R Fed 657 12 I E R Cas BNA 1233 97 Cal Daily Op Service 2723 97 Daily Journal DAR 4831 10 Fla L Weekly Fed S 393Case historyPrior73 F 3d 1543 11th Cir 1996 reversed HoldingThe statute requiring drug testing for all candidates for state offices violated the Fourth Amendment Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionsMajorityGinsburg joined by Stevens O Connor Scalia Kennedy Souter Thomas BreyerDissentRehnquistLaws appliedU S Const amend IV Contents 1 Background 1 1 Statute 1 2 Facts 1 3 District court 1 4 Eleventh Circuit 2 Opinion of the Court 2 1 Dissent 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground editStatute edit In 1990 Georgia enacted a statute 1 which required candidates for designated state office to certify that they had taken a drug test and obtained negative results The candidate could provide test specimen at a laboratory approved by the state or at the office of the candidate s personal physician Once a urine sample was obtained a state approved laboratory determined whether any of the specified illegal drugs were present and prepared a certificate reporting the test results to the candidate Facts edit In 1994 three Libertarian Party 2 candidates for such state offices statute filed an action in District Court against the governor of Georgia and two other state officials involved in the administration of the statute requesting declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the statute They alleged that the drug tests required by the statute violated their rights under provisions including the Federal Constitution s Fourth Amendment District court edit The District Court denied the candidates motion for a preliminary injunction After the candidates submitted to the drug tests obtained the required certificates and appeared on the ballot in the 1994 election the District Court entered final judgment for the state officials Eleventh Circuit edit On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in affirming expressed the view that with respect to the Fourth Amendment the state s interests outweighed the privacy intrusion caused by the statute s required certification 73 F 3d 1543 Opinion of the Court editOn certiorari Ginsburg joined by Stevens O Connor Scalia Kennedy Souter Thomas and Breyer reversed The Court noted that while the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits officials from conducting search and seizures without individualized suspicion there does exist a closely guarded category of permissible suspicionless searches and seizures However the Court held that the statute s drug testing requirement did not fit within this category The Court emphasized that the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial important enough to override the individual s acknowledged privacy interest sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment s normal requirement of individualized suspicion Additionally the Court found that Georgia failed to show in justification of Ga Code Ann 21 2 140 a special need of that kind Notably lacking in respondent officials presentation was any indication of a concrete danger that demanded departure from the Fourth Amendment s main rule The statute was not needed and could not work to ferret out lawbreakers and officials barely attempted to support the statute on that ground However well meant the candidate drug test Georgia devised diminished personal privacy for a symbol s sake state action that is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment In addition to Georgia s failure to provide evidence of a drug problem among its state officials the Court concluded that even if such a problem did exist the affected officials would likely not perform the kind of high risk safety sensitive tasks which might justify the statute s proposed incursion on their individual privacy rights Where as in this case public safety was not genuinely jeopardized the Fourth Amendment precluded a suspicionless search no matter how conveniently arranged Dissent edit Chief Justice Rehnquist expressed the view that the statute s urinalysis test was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 520 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volumeReferences edit Ga Code Ann 21 2 140 Greenhouse Linda April 16 1997 Supreme Court Strikes Down Drug Testing of Candidates The New York Times External links editText of Chandler v Miller 520 U S 305 1997 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Chandler v Miller amp oldid 1175140118, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
