A number of young adults under 21 years of age were allegedly drinking alcoholic beverages at a house party in the City of Troy.  The officers proceeded to administer preliminary breath tests (PBTs) to the young adults.  One of the officers administered a PBT to the defendant, which resulted in 0.025.

The City of Troy Ordinance at issue in the case reads in pertinent part, that "A peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe a person less than 21 years of age has consumed alcoholic beverages may require the person to submit to a preliminary chemical breath analysis."

After having been charged with violating the Ordinance, the defendant moved to suppress the results of the PBT.  Defendant argued that the Ordinance was unconstitutional because it allowed a police officer to perform a warrantless search, because warrantless searches are generally considered unreasonable unless an exception applies, and because no exception to the warrant requirement was applicable in his case.

In support of his position, defendant cited two cases in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan had ruled that a similarly worded ordinance and a similarly worded state statute were unconstitutional.  See Spencer v. Bay City, 292 F. Supp. 2d 932 (ED Mich, 2003); Platte v. Thomas Township, 504 F. Supp. 2d 227 (ED Mich., 2007).

The City of Troy argued that the federal case law relied on by the district court and circuit court failed to adequately address the "special needs" exception to the search warrant requirement. The City contended that the "special needs" exception should be applied in this case because there is a compelling state interest in protecting young people from the dangers of alcohol abuse and in protecting the general public from the potential consequences of alcohol abuse by young persons.

The Court of Appeals ruled that "the decisions in Spencer and Platteare well-reasoned and consistent with existing Fourth Amendment law." The Court concluded that the Troy Ordinance was unconstitutional on its face.  

As to the "special needs" issue the Court agreed with the Spencer Court that "there is nothing special in the need of law enforcement to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing and that reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant." Therefore, the "special needs" exception to the search warrant requirement was not applicable.

The case was affirmed.

People of the City of Troy v. Chowdhury, case no. 288696, released September 10, 2009.