The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that searches and seizures of persons and property be reasonable. And the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a search or seizure is generally unreasonable unless the police officer or other government agent performing the search or seizure can state a basis for individualized suspicion of wrongdoing by the person searched or seized—as opposed to the search or seizure being motivated by a general interest in crime control.

The Supreme Court has recognized limited circumstances in which the usual requirement of individualized suspicion does not apply because the search program is designed to serve special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement and crime control. On that basis, the Supreme Court has upheld search programs that are not based on individualized suspicion for (1) random drug testing of student athletes; (2) drug testing for United States Customs service employees seeking transfer or promotion to certain positions; and (3) drug and alcohol tests for railway employees involved in train accidents or found to be in violation of specific safety regulations.

The Supreme Court has also allowed searches for government administrative purposes without particularized suspicion of misconduct, when the searches are appropriately limited—including (1) a warrantless inspection of a closely regulated business (an automobile junkyard); (2) a warrantless inspection by city firefighters and the fire chief of fire-damaged business premises to determine the cause of the fire (arson); and (3) a warrantless inspection to ensure compliance with the city housing code. And regarding traffic checkpoint searches and seizures, the Supreme Court has allowed searches and seizures of motorists without individualized suspicion at (1) a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens; (2) a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road; and (3) a checkpoint or roadblock for the purpose of verifying drivers’ licenses and vehicle registrations.

The Supreme Court has declined to approve traffic checkpoint programs whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of general criminal wrongdoing—such as a random spot check of a motorist’s driver’s license and vehicle registration, or a narcotics checkpoint using a trained narcotics detection dog. The Court held that these programs do not seek to protect society from the same type of immediate, vehicle-bound threat to life and limb as a sobriety checkpoint, for example, and are primarily for general crime control purposes. When law enforcement authorities pursue what are primarily general crime control purposes at traffic checkpoints, stops (searches and seizures) can only be justified by some amount of individualized suspicion.

Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures by law enforcement must be reasonable, typically requiring individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized exceptions where individualized suspicion is not necessary, often when the search serves a purpose beyond ordinary law enforcement. In Louisiana, as in other states, these exceptions include random drug testing of certain employees, warrantless inspections of regulated businesses, and specific administrative searches. Additionally, the Supreme Court has permitted traffic checkpoint searches without individualized suspicion for immigration enforcement, drunk driving prevention, and verifying driver's licenses and vehicle registrations. However, checkpoints primarily aimed at detecting general criminal activity, without a specific safety concern, have not been upheld, as they do not meet the special needs exception and are considered to be for general crime control, which requires at least some individualized suspicion.