Case Document Type
Respondents' attempt to bring the Search Policy within the scope of the limited special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment fails for three reasons. First, their claim that the Policy served needs beyond the normal needs of law enforcement is belied by their own admissions about the essential role law enforcement played. Second, Respondents understate the limits placed on law enforcement involvement in special needs cases and mischaracterize the evidence concerning the impact of the Policy. Finally, Respondents attempt to evade entirely the issue on which this Court granted certiorari by raising the argument that the searches here were consensual even though no evidence suggests that the Petitioners ("patients") granted consent to an investigatory search...