In the late 1980’s, there was a major increase in the use of cocaine by many pregnant women. Researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) began to perform drugs screens on these women. They did this by collecting urine and if the tests came back positive, they were recommended for counseling. Moreover, MUSC created a relationship with the police department in Charleston. Since cocaine was viewed as harmful towards the fetus during pregnancy, after testing positive women were prosecuted by the Charleston police. This was also done to reduce the amount of women subjected to cocaine during pregnancy. The women were forced to take these tests without consent.

Lower Case verdict: When 30 pregnant women were arrested for violating MUSC policy, they challenged them in court. They believed that since the drug testing took place without a warrant or consent, it violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be protected from these actions. However, the hospital and the prosecution stated that the women did give consent. They also stated that even if they did not give consent, this action was justified by the constitution because of “special non-law-enforcement” purposes. The second point was denied by the judge, but the first defense was accepted and the jury chose to rule for the city and the prosecution. The women arrested appealed.

Precedence: The special needs doctrine was applied to various cases in our history. These cases include:  Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, and Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association. However, the doctrine was applied to these cases, making them different from the Ferguson vs. City of Charleston because the drug tested women were did not give consent from these tests to be done.

Relief sought: Ferguson made the "special needs" aspect of the fourth amendment more specific and clarifying. The special needs doctrine did not make searches and seizures without consent or probable cause unconstitutional. These women wanted to protect their fourth Amendment rights. Furthermore, they wanted to make it clear that there is a separation between the constitutional law and law enforcement. This is important because law enforcement is not given the opportunity to act upon their own special interests. Finally, they also wanted to prevent doctors from sharing confidential patient information.

Majority decision of the court: The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of prosecuted women. They stated that conducting the searches without consent, probable cause or warrants were completely unconstitutional. Although using cocaine may put the life of the baby as well as the mother in jail, this type of search violates the fourth amendment. Justice Stevens denied the fact that this was a “special need” case because it should not interfere with the special interests of law enforcement.

Dissenting opinion: Justice Scalia believed that “search and seizure” did not apply to this case because the women consent in giving their urine samples. This means that they had to have given their samples of urine voluntary. She believed that they voluntarily did this because the hospital stated that consent was in fact given.  She also believed that law enforcement had nothing to do with this case. Overall, their rights were not violated in her opinion.