Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
New Jersey v. T. L. O.green2 sentences2023A warrant is generally required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard, however, the United States Supreme Court has “permitted exceptions when ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.’” Id. (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment)). 2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri | 4 | 4 |
Griffin v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2023A warrant is generally required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard, however, the United States Supreme Court has “permitted exceptions when ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.’” Id. (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment)). 2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri | 2 | 7 |
Ferguson v. City of Charlestongreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri 2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri | 2 | 2 |
cluster 476704green2 sentences2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri 2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri | 2 | 2 |
Franz v. Lytlegreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri 2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri | 2 | 2 |
Tenenbaum v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri 2021See, e.g., Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 875-76 , 877-78 & nn.4 & 6 (1987) (administrative search requires reasonableness only, rather than quantum of concrete evidence to support probable cause; warrantless search of probationer’s home was reasonable where state’s Department of Health and Social Services regulatory scheme provided “special needs” for the supervision of a special population “beyond the normal need for law enforcement[ which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable”), quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurri | 2 | 2 |
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raabgreen2 sentences1990In a limited number of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that a warrantless search conducted without probable cause may nevertheless withstand the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment when "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Skinner, supra 489 U.S. at ___ , 109 S.Ct. at 1414 , quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-874 , 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3168 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987); National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 , ___, 109 S.Ct. 1384 , ___, 103 L.Ed.2d 685, 7 1990In a limited number of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that a warrantless search conducted without probable cause may nevertheless withstand the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment when "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Skinner, supra 489 U.S. at ___ , 109 S.Ct. at 1414 , quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873-874 , 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3168 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987); National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 , ___, 109 S.Ct. 1384 , ___, 103 L.Ed.2d 685, 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
green
2 sentences1992The special needs exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized in certain cases when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” Skinner, supra, 489 U.S. at 619 , 109 S.Ct. at 1414 , citing Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 , 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3167 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987). 1992The special needs exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized in certain cases when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” Skinner, supra, 489 U.S. at 619 , 109 S.Ct. at 1414 , citing Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 , 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3167 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987). | 2 | 1990–1992 |
United States v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence2013Therefore, the district court concluded “that balancing the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests occasioned by GPS installation and monitoring with the legitimate government interests in doing so does not justify an exception to the warrant-and-probable-cause requirement in run-of-the-mill law enforcement situations.” Id. at 530 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
green
2 sentences2002As noted recently by the Supreme Court in Vernonia School *722 District 47J v. Acton: “A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” 515 U.S. 646, 653 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 , 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (quotation marks removed). ¶44 In the case at hand, the fourth amendment’s requirement of reasonableness, if the amendment in fact applies to civil discovery procedure, is met in Pa.R.C.P.1915.8 as applied by the trial court. 2002As noted recently by the Supreme Court in Vernonia School *722 District 47J v. Acton: “A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” 515 U.S. 646, 653 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 , 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (quotation marks removed). ¶44 In the case at hand, the fourth amendment’s requirement of reasonableness, if the amendment in fact applies to civil discovery procedure, is met in Pa.R.C.P.1915.8 as applied by the trial court. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.