 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anchorage Police Dept. Employees Association v. Municipality of Anchorage6/15/2001
No. 5423
MATTHEWS, Chief Justice, dissenting.
I. INTRODUCTION
The superior court found constitutionally valid a policy adopted by the Municipality of Anchorage (Municipality) that subjects police and fire department employees in safety-sensitive positions to suspicionless substance abuse testing in certain situations -- upon job application, promotion, demotion, or transfer, and after a traffic accident -- and at random. The Anchorage Police Department Employees Association (Police Employees) and the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1264 (Fire Fighters) appeal. We affirm all but one aspect of the superior court's ruling, concluding that the Municipality's at random testing provision violates the Alaska Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In September 1994 the Municipality adopted Policy No. 40-24 ("the policy"). The policy provides for substance abuse testing, by urinalysis, of certain municipal employees (1) upon employment application, promotion, demotion, or transfer; (2) following a vehicular accident; (3) on reasonable suspicion; and (4) at random. All employees are subject to post-accident testing. Only employees in "public safety positions" are subject to random testing and to promotion/demotion/transfer testing. A public safety position is defined as "a position in the Police or Fire Department having a substantially significant degree of responsibility for the safety of the public where the unsafe performance of an incumbent could result in death or injury to self or others."
Police Employees and Fire Fighters notified the Municipality that they believed that suspicionless testing is unconstitutional. In June 1996 they filed actions for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, arguing that testing without reasonable suspicion (and without a warrant) violates their members' state and federal constitutional rights to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures.
On consolidated motions for summary judgment, the superior court determined that the Municipality's policy is constitutional. The superior court declined to award attorney's fees to the Municipality, finding that Police Employees and Fire Fighters were public interest litigants. Police Employees and Fire Fighters appeal the substance of the superior court's decision; the Municipality cross-appeals the denial of attorney's fees and costs.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party and affirming the trial court's ruling when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On questions of law, we are not bound by the lower court's decision and will adopt the rule of law that is "most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy." We review a decision regarding attorney's fees/public-interest-litigant status for abuse of discretion.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Suspicionless Substance Abuse Testing
Police Employees and Fire Fighters mount their challenge to the Municipality's suspicionless testing policy along four constitutional fronts. They contend that the policy violates the right to privacy and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; they press each of these theories under the Alaska and United States Constitutions. The superior court's thorough and thoughtful decision on summary judgment addressed each of these claims but placed primary emphasis on the alleged violations of Alaska's constitutional
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|