The courts have found that drug testing is constitutional in certain circumstances as a form of warrantless search. Employees in certain high-risk or high-security occupations may be asked to take a drug test. U.S. bus drivers, railroad workers, airline pilots and customs officers can all be tested for drugs. Public school students may be assigned to random drug testing to participate in choral competitions, sports, groups or academic competitions. Professional athletes and participants in international competitions such as the Olympics must also submit bodily fluid samples for analysis as a prerequisite for participation. In the context of the border search, reasonable suspicion means that the facts known to the customs officer at the time of the search, combined with the reasonable conclusions drawn from those facts, provide the officer with a specific and objective basis for suspecting that the search will detect contraband. [28] In order to establish a reasonable suspicion, a customs officer may rely on his or her previous training and experience, as well as completely innocent factors, if all the circumstances give him a reasonable suspicion. In May 2018, U.S. v. Kolsuz, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that it was unconstitutional for U.S. border agents to search visitors` devices without individual suspicion of criminal misconduct.
[22] Only five days later, in U.S. v. Touset, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, split with the Fourth and Ninth Districts, ruling that the Fourth Amendment does not require suspicion of forensic searches of electronic devices at the border. [23] The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in deciding whether or not to grant a review of a case. [24] The Supreme Court did not specifically determine what level of suspicion would be required for a strip search, body cavity, or unintentional x-ray search,[27] although it did state that the only two standards for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment without warrant were “reasonable suspicion” and “probable reason” (rejection of a “clear indication” standard). It is traditionally known that persons exercising police powers under customs legislation may carry out searches and seizures without a search warrant in the context of customs law enforcement. Admittedly, the absence of a search warrant was not automatically called into question. Nevertheless, the court investigated the legality of the raid due to the gravity of the crime. The court then analyzed the context by taking into account the following facts: (1) the raid was triggered by intelligence reports and monitoring of ongoing rebel activities in the building; 2. the presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives in a car sales office could not be justified; 3) There was continuous chaos at the time due to the simultaneous and intense fire near the office and in the nearby camp of Aguinaldo, which was attacked by rebel forces; and (4) the courtyards in the area were clearly closed and the building and houses in them were abandoned.
It is not necessary for all searches, seizures or arrests to be carried out on the basis of a lawfully executed arrest warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police searches may comply with the Fourth Amendment as long as it is appropriate in the circumstances. The exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement reflect the court`s reluctance to obstruct the work of law enforcement officers. Any search of a person or property without a warrant from a judge is a “warrantless search.” Normally, this protects you with your rights under the Fourth Amendment, but there are exceptions. Checks and searches inland in border areas are another matter entirely. See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 6 note 413 U.S. 266 (1973).
Justices White, Blackmun, Rehnquist and Chief Justice Burger reportedly found the search reasonable after Congress determined that searches conducted by such mobile patrols were the only effective way to monitor contraband at the border. Id., p. 285. Judge Powell agreed, arguing in favor of a general non-vehicle-specific administrative arrest warrant, similar to the type of warrant proposed for non-criminal administrative inspections of homes and commercial facilities on health and safety grounds, id. at 275, but the court has not yet heard a specific case. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 547 n.2, 562 n.15 (1976). The court ruled that suspending and searching the defendant`s car without a warrant on a highway about 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol without any probable reason to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment.