Police officers involved shootings may berequired to submit to breathalyzer testing
Unions representing various ranks of police officers serving with the New YorkCity Police Department objected to a departmental order requiring that anypolice officer involved in a shooting, on or off duty, that resulted in aninjury or death submit to a breathalyzer test. The unions contended that requiring police personnel tosubmit to such testing “without probable cause” constituted an unreasonablesearch in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Federal District Court JudgeGeorge B. Daniels rejected this argument and granted the City’s motion for summaryjudgment.
Judge Daniels ruled that requiring police officers to submitto the breathalyzer tests under such circumstances was justified under the “specialneeds doctrine.” This doctrine has been relied upon to justify warrantless drugand alcohol testing of individuals employed in the public sector.*
According to the decision, the primary purpose of the searches was not crime control, but personnelmanagement--to deter officers from becoming intoxicated and discharging theirweapons. These special needs outweigh any privacy interest that officers mighthave in not submitting to the tests.
* See National TreasuryEmployees Union v. Von Raab, 489U.S. 656 (1989), upholding drug and alcohol testing of public employees.
The decision isposted on the Internet at;http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=190
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder