- Begin your post by briefly describing what a “special needs search” is and the general circumstances under which they are allowed.
- Then, provide your opinion as to whether or not you agree with the holding of the court in Macwade v. Kelly. In expressing your opinion regarding the holding in this case be sure to cover the following:
Do you agree with the court that the actions of the NYPD in conducting these searches were reasonable? Be sure to explain why. Would you support allowing officers to conduct secondary searches on subway cars to ensure that no containers were missed at the posted search locations? Be sure to explain how you arrived at your position.
Discussion 1: Special Needs Search
The article addresses the “special needs search”, which is often applied with an exception based on the searches and the seizures which is often conducted, without any individualized suspicions, often purposed while minimizing the risk factor to harm any individual. There, under the Fourth Amendment, “special needs search”, is based on the details which dwell about the search on an ordinary basis, which must be based on individualized suspicion of any further wrongdoings. The issue of the case Macwade v/s Kelly is associated with the government employing a random search to safeguard the mass transportation facility from terrorist attacks. Yet, New York City implements the search program, to make the plaintiff-appellant enter the subway system. While here, New York City, after the issue, requires to be precise enough to safeguard the people from any terror attacks. Thus, with the implementation of the “special search”, this case could have engaged the exceptional needs of the Fourth Amendment, to meet all the usual requirements based on individualized suspicion. Moreover, the case is based on the treatment, to sue a defendant-appellees of the New York City and police Commissioner Raymond Kelly to be a pursuant under the 42 U.S.C 1983, based on the search regime of the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, I agree with the actions taken by the NYPD, as it is likely to be sought out of the declaratory judgment, with a preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, to the attorney fees. Apart from this, this consists of the benchmark trial, for the United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York to increase the degree of the search program based on the Constitutional deal with special needs, with an exception based on the complaint with prejudice.
Moreover, I agree with the decision taken up, because this can be concluded on the note that the court requires to afford all the public aid based on the recipients based on a pre-termination factor with an evidentiary hearing from the discontinuing the privilege. Apart from this, the NYPD has established daily suspicion inspection checkpoints to select the subway facilities, and to negotiate with the terror attacks. While this case gave a glimpse of the significance of how checkpoint is crucial, where officers are allowed to make searches on the bags, for a portion of subway riders to enter the station. Under the Fourth Amendment, have search is ordinarily based on narrating suspicious wrongdoings. Moreover, a special warrant is an exception related to the deterrent to address the ordinary needs of law enforcement. Therefore, lastly, this can be concluded that the court has concluded primarily based on the interest to make conservation which is administered under the cost with no sufficient override public assistance to the recipient with an interest under a procedural due process. Thus, the New York Police Department has implemented on hearing, that the Court is deficient about insofar that shall not permit the recipient to present evidence, that is heard orally through the counsel or can even follow the notion of the cross-examination to deal with the adverse witness.
Oyez.org (2022). Goldberg v. Kelly. (1970). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1969/62 (Retrieved on October 3, 2022,)