 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gunn9/21/2000
orm certain sensitive tasks while under the influence of those substances. . . . The Government may take all necessary and reasonable regulatory steps to prevent or deter that hazardous conduct. . . . The necessity to perform that regulatory function with respect to railroad employees engaged in safety-sensitive tasks, and the reasonableness for doing so, have been established in this case. 489 U.S. at 633, 109 S.Ct. at 1422.
In National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989), the companion case to Skinner, the Court upheld compulsory drug testing of certain Customs Service employees. The Court again explained that illegal substance use by such employees posed such a threat to public safety that such tests were justified. The Court also emphasized the non-prosecutorial function of the tests and pointed out that the drug testing policy provided that the test results could not be given to any other agency, including a criminal prosecutor, without the employee 's written consent.
In upholding the constitutionality of the regulations, the court considered the prohibition against using the test results in a criminal prosecution. Specifically, the Court explained as follows:
It is clear that the Customs Services' drug testing program is not designed to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement. Test results may not be used in a criminal prosecution of the employee without the employee's consent. The purposes of the program are to deter drug use among those eligible for promotion to sensitive positions within the service and to prevent the promotion of drug users to those positions. These substantial interests . . . present a special need that may justify a departure from the ordinary warrant and probable cause requirements. 489 U.S. at 666, 109 S.Ct. at 1391.
The prohibition against using test results in a criminal prosecution was also emphasized in Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997). Therein, the Georgia legislature passed a statute requiring candidates for state office to submit to and pass a drug test. The candidates challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The Supreme Court explained as follows in finding that the statute was unconstitutional:
To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted based on `special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.' When such "special needs" - concerns other than crime detection - are alleged in justification of a Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a context-specific inquiry, examining closely the competing private and public interests advanced by the parties. 520 U.S. at 313, 117 S.Ct. at 1301 (emphasis added).
Here, we find that the South Bend policy, like that in Skinner, is permissible under a federal constitutional analysis because of the substantial risks to public safety resulting from the impairment of police officers by the consumption of alcohol and drugs and the interest of the government in presenting or deterring such conduct. However, we also find that the use of that policy to pursue criminal prosecutions against employees is a violation of those employees' Fourth Amendment rights.
In Skinner, Von Raab, and Chandler, the Supreme Court fashioned a very narrow exception to the usual Fourth Amendment requirements. However, the Court did not extend the exception to permit the use of such test results in a criminal prosecution of the employee . We decline to do so now.
The trial court properly granted Gunn's
Page 1 2 3 4 Indiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|