WALKER L. CHANDLER, et al., PETITIONERS v. ZELL D.

MILLER, GOVERNOR OF
GEORGIA, et al.

Brief Fact Summary. Libertarian Party nominees challenged a Georgia statute requiring
proof of urinalysis drug test to qualify for nomination to election.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. “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.

RULE:

To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on

individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized exceptions to the main rule
are sometimes warranted based on special needs, beyond the normal need for law
enforcement. When such special needs--concerns other than crime detection--are
alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a
context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests
advanced by the parties. In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests
implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest
furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized
suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion.

FACTS:

In 1990, the state of Georgia enacted a statute which required that each candidate
seeking to qualify for nomination or election to designated state offices certify that (1)
the candidate, within 30 days prior to qualifying, had submitted to a urinalysis test for
marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidines, and (2) the results of
such test were negative. The candidate could provide the 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. In 1994, three candidates for state offices which were covered by the
statute filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against the governor of Georgia and two other state officials involved in the
administration of the statute. The candidates, who requested declaratory and injunctive
relief barring enforcement of the statute, alleged that the drug tests required by the
statute violated their rights under provisions including the Federal Constitution's Fourth
Amendment. The District Court denied the candidates' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The candidates apparently submitted to the drug tests, obtained the required
certificates, and appeared on the ballot in the 1994 election. After the election, the
District Court entered final judgment for the state officials. On appeal, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in affirming, expressed the view that with

1
respect to the Fourth Amendment, the state's interests outweighed the privacy intrusion
caused by the statute's required certification.

ISSUE:

Was Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-140, a statute which required candidates for designated
state office to certify that they had taken a drug test and obtained negative results,
unconstitutional violating the Fourth Amendment?

ANSWER:

Yes

CONCLUSION:

The Court held that Georgia's requirement that candidates for state office pass a drug
test was outside the category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches.
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. 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. Where, as in this case, public safety was not genuinely jeopardized, the
Fourth Amendment precluded a suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently
arranged.