Case Study #1: Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1988) Facts: In July 1983, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented regulations requiring mandatory, warrantless, blood and urine tests of employees involved in certain train accidents. Other FRA rules allowed railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain safety rules. The rules appeared in response to growing concern about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees. Reports showed that from 1972 to 1983, "the nation's railroads experienced at least 21 significant train accidents involving alcohol or drug use as a probable cause or contributing factor," and that these accidents "resulted in 25 fatalities, 61 non-fatal injuries, and property damage estimated at $19 million (approximately $27 million in 1982 dollars)." The FRA further identified "an additional 17 fatalities to operating employees working on or around rail rolling stock that involved alcohol or drugs as a contributing factor." In addition, "industry participants . . . confirmed that alcohol and drug use [did] occur on the railroads with unacceptable frequency," and available information from all sources "suggest[ed] that the problem includ[ed] `pockets' of drinking and drug use involving multiple crew members (before and during work), sporadic cases of individuals reporting to work impaired, and repeated drinking and drug use by individual employees who are chemically or psychologically dependent on those substances." The Railway Labor Executives' Association, an umbrella group of railway trade unions, sued to have the new regulations declared an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Decision: The Court ruled against the Railway Labor Executives’ Association. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government's interest in assuring safety on the nation's railroads constituted a "special need" which justified a departure from standard warrant and requirements in searches. Focus Questions Think about these questions after reading the case study: What are the implications of this ruling? Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not? Case Study #2: Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, et al. (2002) Facts:
Case Study #1: Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association (1988) Facts: In July 1983, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) implemented regulations requiring mandatory, warrantless, blood and urine tests of employees involved in certain train accidents. Other FRA rules allowed railroads to administer breath and urine tests to employees who violate certain safety rules. The rules appeared in response to growing concern about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees. Reports showed that from 1972 to 1983, "the nation's railroads experienced at least 21 significant train accidents involving alcohol or drug use as a probable cause or contributing factor," and that these accidents "resulted in 25 fatalities, 61 non-fatal injuries, and property damage estimated at $19 million (approximately $27 million in 1982 dollars)." The FRA further identified "an additional 17 fatalities to operating employees working on or around rail rolling stock that involved alcohol or drugs as a contributing factor." In addition, "industry participants . . . confirmed that alcohol and drug use [did] occur on the railroads with unacceptable frequency," and available information from all sources "suggest[ed] that the problem includ[ed] `pockets' of drinking and drug use involving multiple crew members (before and during work), sporadic cases of individuals reporting to work impaired, and repeated drinking and drug use by individual employees who are chemically or psychologically dependent on those substances." The Railway Labor Executives' Association, an umbrella group of railway trade unions, sued to have the new regulations declared an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Decision: The Court ruled against the Railway Labor Executives’ Association. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government's interest in assuring safety on the nation's railroads constituted a "special need" which justified a departure from standard warrant and requirements in searches. Focus Questions Think about these questions after reading the case study: What are the implications of this ruling? Do you think this is the correct result? Why or why not? Case Study #2: Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, et al. (2002) Facts:
Fourth%20Amendment%20and%20Body%20Case%20Studies.docx