Which case held that Georgia's drug test requirement for candidates for state office violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protections against suspicion-less searches?

Which case held that Georgia's drug test requirement for candidates for state office violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protections against suspicion-less searches?

• A. Coker v. Georgia (1977)
• B. Chandler v. Miller (1997)
• C. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
• D. Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Answer: (B)

Suspicionless drug testing of political candidates is treated as an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and that protection applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s law requiring candidates for state office to pass a drug test to appear on the ballot. The Court emphasized that the program imposed a blanket, suspicionless search on all candidates, with no individualized suspicion or narrowly tailored justification. Because the testing was not tailored to prove a specific risk and it burdened the fundamental process of seeking public office, it failed the reasonableness standard the Fourth Amendment demands. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures these restrictions apply to state action, so the Georgia requirement could not stand. Other listed cases address different issues—capital punishment in unrelated contexts and obscenity—so they do not govern the question of suspicionless searches in this ballot-access scenario.

Suspicionless drug testing of political candidates is treated as an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and that protection applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Chandler v. Miller, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s law requiring candidates for state office to pass a drug test to appear on the ballot. The Court emphasized that the program imposed a blanket, suspicionless search on all candidates, with no individualized suspicion or narrowly tailored justification. Because the testing was not tailored to prove a specific risk and it burdened the fundamental process of seeking public office, it failed the reasonableness standard the Fourth Amendment demands. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures these restrictions apply to state action, so the Georgia requirement could not stand. Other listed cases address different issues—capital punishment in unrelated contexts and obscenity—so they do not govern the question of suspicionless searches in this ballot-access scenario.