Special Exception: Roadblock, Random Drug Test & DNA Sample
Special Exception: Roadblock, Random Drug Test & DNA Sample
Roadblocks, random drug tests, and DNA samples – oh my! As a lawyer, you may encounter clients who have found themselves in sticky situations involving these three scenarios. It’s important to understand the legalities and defenses around them.
Let’s start with roadblocks. These are set up by police to catch drivers who are intoxicated or committing other crimes. But do roadblocks infringe on citizens’ rights? The courts have generally said no, as long as they meet certain criteria.
Police need to show the roadblock serves a legitimate purpose, like catching drunk drivers or checking licenses and registrations. They also can’t discriminate – all vehicles passing through should be stopped. And motorists can’t be detained too long – only the couple minutes it takes to do a quick check. As long as police follow guidelines, roadblocks are usually legal.
That said, questionable roadblocks can be challenged. If police stop vehicles arbitrarily, hold up drivers extensively, or target specific groups, a defense attorney could argue the roadblock violates constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Next up – random drug testing. This is common for employees in transportation, healthcare, and other sensitive fields. But is it legal for all jobs? Generally, no. Courts have ruled random drug tests need to serve a specific purpose, like ensuring workplace safety when employees operate heavy machinery. Testing everyone from accountants to cafeteria workers goes too far.
However, people on probation or parole may face more expansive drug testing. Their Fourth Amendment rights are more limited while under supervision. Still, truly random or excessive tests could be unreasonable. A lawyer may argue against blanket testing policies that seem intended to catch probationers in minor violations vs serving a legitimate purpose.
DNA samples raise another set of issues. All 50 states require DNA collection from convicted felons. This helps link criminals to unsolved crimes. However, some laws go further – allowing sampling from those merely arrested or charged with a crime. Civil liberties groups protest this as an unconstitutional search, especially if the arrestee is never convicted.
Defense attorneys have had success challenging DNA collection from those not found guilty. In Maryland, the state’s high court ruled sampling at arrest violates presumptions of innocence. But other states permit DNA swabbing after arrest. So there are pros and cons to weigh here.
The bottom line? Roadblocks, drug tests and DNA collection all have legal limits. As a lawyer, stay up on the evolving laws in your state. Advise clients on their rights and defenses. Challenge unreasonable policies that go beyond what courts have allowed. The law aims to balance public safety and individual liberties – help clients navigate that line.
With roadblocks, ensure police follow guidelines on non-discrimination and minimum detention. For drug tests, look for legitimate safety rationales vs dragnet sampling. On DNA, argue sampling should be limited to those convicted absent a warrant, not just charged. In all cases, advocate for clients’ privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches.
These issues sit at the intersection of security and rights. With thoughtful challenges, lawyers can define where we draw that line. Arm your clients with knowledge of the law and their options. Together, you can work to uphold both safety and liberty.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-sobriety-checkpoints-legal.html
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/roadblock-laws.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-drug-testing.html
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-challenge-dna-sampling-arrestees