Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 619, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1414, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), neither probable cause nor a warrant is required when “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” Vernonia, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2391 (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3168, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In “special needs” cases, a category that includes criminal and civil proceedings, the Court dispenses with the probable cause and warrant requirements and simply applies a balancing test to determine if a search or seizure is reasonable and thus constitutional. See O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 725, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 1501, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1986) (plurality) (<HOLDING>); see also New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325,
holding neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause requirement should apply to noninvestigatory workrelated purposes or for investigations of workrelated misconduct  recognizing that where authorized party consents to search neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary holding that the probable cause requirement for the initial stop and the exclusionary rule do not apply in section 302505 proceedings holding that government employers may conduct warrantless workrelated searches of employees offices without probable cause holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment