 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blank v. State5/19/2000
er or operator caused the accident.
In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has decided that a limited group of searches without individualized suspicion that are authorized by statute or regulation, are reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment and are based on "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement[.]" The State argues that Blank's breath test can be justified under this "special needs" exception.
In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, the Supreme Court approved government-mandated blood and breath tests by railroad companies for those employees who were involved in serious accidents or had violated certain safety rules. The Court ruled that these searches were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment even though there was no suspicion of individualized wrongdoing. As the Court stated in Skinner:
In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspicion.
Because the railroad employees worked in a highly regulated industry, the Court balanced the employees' diminished expectation of privacy against the government's interest in ensuring the safety of an industry where the employees, like those in the nuclear industry, can cause "great human loss" when "a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences."
When "special needs" are advanced as a justification for a Fourth Amendment intrusion, the Court undertakes a context-specific inquiry, examining the competing private and public interests. In National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the Court reviewed and approved a Customs Service rule that mandated drug testing for any employee taking a position that involved direct contact with drug intervention or required the employee to carry a firearm. There, the Court decided that the country's interest in avoiding the promotion of drug users to positions where they might endanger the integrity of our Nation's borders or the life of the citizenry outweighed the limited privacy interests of employees who had a diminished expectation of privacy because of the "special, and obvious, physical and ethical demands of [their] positions." The Court therefore held that the searches were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
In Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, the Court approved a random drug-testing program for students participating in extracurricular sports programs. The school district imposed that program in the face of problems at school caused by wide spread drug use among the students where the "athletes were the leaders of the drug culture." Balanced against this concern (a concern that the Court described as "important - indeed, perhaps compelling") were (1) the athletes' reduced expectation of privacy in general because they were students and schools regularly exercise their custodial responsibility for the children with examinations for physical and medical problems; and (2) the even lower expectation of privacy that a school athlete has because of the athlete's less than private experiences in the locker room. Also, the Court noted that the testing program was relatively unobtrusive (and confidential). The Court balanced three factors in its analysis: the nature of the privacy interest which the search intrudes, the character of the intrusion, and the nature and the immediacy of the government's concern and the efficacy of the means for meeting it. Balancing these three factors, the Acton Court declared that the school district policy requiring athletes t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|