 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards v. State6/19/2001
ntial the Government's interests in promoting highway safety and protecting employees from retaliatory discharge. Roadway does not question the legislative determination that noncompliance with applicable state and federal safety regulations in the transportation industry is sufficiently widespread to warrant enactment of specific protective legislation encouraging employees to report violations. "Random inspections by Federal and State law enforcement officials in various parts of the country uniformly found widespread violation of safety regulations," and [the relevant federal statute] was designed to assist in combating the "increasing number of deaths, injuries, and property damage due to commercial motor vehicle accidents." 128 Cong.Rec. 32509, 32510 (1982) (remarks of Sen. Danforth and summary of proposed statute). Brock v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 481 U.S. 252, 262 (1987) (bracketed inserts in original).
. Even beyond commercial truck inspections, there have been situations in which random searches have been authorized when the reasons are not simply law enforcement. Of course, we are concerned with a seizure and not a full search, a distinction which under the balancing tests being applied in Camara and other case law is significant. As a useful analogy are the precedents that address "special need" searches. As the Supreme Court majority in Edmond stated, some "suspicionless searches" are permitted when the reasons serve "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." Edmond, 121 S.Ct. at 451, quoting Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995) (random drug testing of student-athletes permissible) .
. Among those special needs are several situations for random drug and alcohol testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions. Edmond, 121 S.Ct. at 451-52, citing Treasury Employees v. Van Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 627 (1989)("the expectations of privacy of covered employees are diminished by reason of their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety. . . . [The importance of safety] was recognized by Congress when it enacted the Hours of Service Act in 1907, and also when it authorized the Secretary to "test . . . railroad facilities, equipment, rolling stock, operations, or persons, as he deems necessary" under a 1970 railroad statute).
. The critical considerations are under Camara or the similar factors in Brown v. Texas. Under those factors, we find that increased inspections of randomly selected truckers are permissible.
. Relevant by analogy is case law for random administrative inspections of closely regulated businesses. See., e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-704 (1987). Its primary application is to stationary business premises. Burger provides for notice to business premises owners "that inspections will be made on a regular basis and by limiting the inspection to regular business hours and to vehicles and parts subject to record-keeping requirements." Charles H. Whitebread & Christopher Slobogin, Criminal Procedure, §13.03 (a) (1993) at 276. We find that the Burger test is satisfied here. Instead of the inspectors' choosing when to inspect, the trucker chooses by the schedule that he keeps. The inspection occurs at a stationary weigh site, can only occur when the trucker decides to use the adjacent highway, and is limited in scope to what can be seen from outside the vehicle. That a trucker is not always inspected is equivalent to the business that is not going to be inspected every day that it is open for business.
. For the variety of reasons, starting with the Camara factors, then looking explicit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|