United States Fourth Circuit

In an action alleging that a hospital and law enforcement policy of drug testing pregnant women's urine constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, no rational jury could find that patients gave their informed and voluntary consent to testing.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/22/2002
• Decided 10/17/2002
• Published 10/17/2002

Judges

• Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CATHERINE C. BLAKE, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Priscilla Joyce Smith, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, New York, New York, for Appellants.  Robert Holmes Hood, Hood Law Firm, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Julie Rikelman, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, New York, New York;  Susan K. Dunn, Charleston, South Carolina;  David Rudovsky, Kairys, Rudovsky, Epstein, Messing & Rau, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;  Lynn Paltrow, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, New York, New York;  Seth Kreimer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;  Susan Frietsche, David Cohen, Women's Law Project, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants.  Barbara W. Showers, Mary Agnes Hood Craig, Deborah Harrison Sheffield, Hood Law Firm, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.  Kimani Paul Emile, Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae Center.  Daniel N. Abrahamson, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae Medical Association, et al.