The term "actuarial justice" is relatively new in the criminal justice literature; however, its main theme is a systems theory, one in which justice is viewed as quantifiable or, more specifically, is treated as the product that results when the component parts of the justice system efficiently process offenders through that system. Actuarial justice shifts the focus of the criminal justice system away from concern with individual offenders and individual rights toward more emphasis on efficient management of offender groups and regulation of disorderly or dangerous populations. Because actuarial justice is concerned with making the criminal justice system efficient and well- managed, police agencies have sought to remove constitutional obstacles that make policing inconvenient and inefficient. This article traces the evolution of the "special needs" doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court and examines its application in the lower courts. The authors argue that the Supreme Court in the 1980's empowered governmental entities to conduct searches with fewer restraints when it created the "special needs" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements. According to the Court, the "special needs" exception should only apply when the routine interests of law enforcement are not implicated. Lower courts, however, have been instrumental in extending the administrative search doctrine of "special needs" into the realm of criminal law enforcement. The authors conclude that as part of the broader movement in criminal justice toward managerial efficiency, the "special needs" exception serves as a tool of actuarial justice by diminishing Fourth Amendment rights. 10 notes and 92 references