IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows: Forest Service officials, or persons acting on their behalf, may not search the persons of Forest Service employees for drugs without a search warrant, unless the employee consents to the search or there exist other circumstances which constitute a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirements; Forest Service officials, or persons acting on their behalf, may not search for drugs in the government–owned, single-family dwellings or in government-owned, multiple-bedroom dwellings, in those areas that are used exclusively for residential purposes by Forest Service employees, without a search warrant unless a valid consent to search the area is given or there exist other circumstances which constitute a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirements; Forest Service officials, or persons acting on their behalf, may use, in accordance with judicial precedents, dogs trained to detect the presence of drugs to sniff workplace areas, the exteriors of travel packs used by Forest Service employees and the exteriors of private automobiles parked on Forest Service property, without a search warrant, probable cause or individualized suspicion. If the dog behaves in a manner which indicates that it has detected drugs in a travel pack or automobile, the pack or automobile may not be opened and searched without a search warrant, unless a valid consent is given or there exist other circumstances which constitute a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement; Consent to a search exists where the employee has freely and voluntarily consented. Defendants will instruct those Forest Service officials responsible for conducting searches to inform employees when consent to search is requested that the employee has the prerogative to decline to give consent without adverse consequences. Where possible, the consent should be obtained in writing and should indicate that the employee has not been coerced or threatened into granting consent; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Forest Service may continue to conduct, in compliance with existing and procedures, inspections of and visits to government-owned, employee-occupied residential facilities for purposes of repair, maintenance, health and checks, and the like; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that each party shall bear its own costs connected with this litigation. Dated: 3/10/89 For Plaintiffs: /s/ H. Stephan Gordon H. STEPHAN GORDON General Counsel, National Federation of Federal Employees /s/ Alice L. Bodley ALICE L. BODLEY Deputy General Counsel /s/ Jeffrey Sumberg JEFFREY SUMBERG Staff Attorney
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows: Forest Service officials, or persons acting on their behalf, may not search the persons of Forest Service employees for drugs without a search warrant, unless the employee consents to the search or there exist other circumstances which constitute a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirements; Forest Service officials, or persons acting on their behalf, may not search for drugs in the government–owned, single-family dwellings or in government-owned, multiple-bedroom dwellings, in those areas that are used exclusively for residential purposes by Forest Service employees, without a search warrant unless a valid consent to search the area is given or there exist other circumstances which constitute a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirements; Forest Service officials, or persons acting on their behalf, may use, in accordance with judicial precedents, dogs trained to detect the presence of drugs to sniff workplace areas, the exteriors of travel packs used by Forest Service employees and the exteriors of private automobiles parked on Forest Service property, without a search warrant, probable cause or individualized suspicion. If the dog behaves in a manner which indicates that it has detected drugs in a travel pack or automobile, the pack or automobile may not be opened and searched without a search warrant, unless a valid consent is given or there exist other circumstances which constitute a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement; Consent to a search exists where the employee has freely and voluntarily consented. Defendants will instruct those Forest Service officials responsible for conducting searches to inform employees when consent to search is requested that the employee has the prerogative to decline to give consent without adverse consequences. Where possible, the consent should be obtained in writing and should indicate that the employee has not been coerced or threatened into granting consent; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Forest Service may continue to conduct, in compliance with existing and procedures, inspections of and visits to government-owned, employee-occupied residential facilities for purposes of repair, maintenance, health and checks, and the like; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that each party shall bear its own costs connected with this litigation. Dated: 3/10/89 For Plaintiffs: /s/ H. Stephan Gordon H. STEPHAN GORDON General Counsel, National Federation of Federal Employees /s/ Alice L. Bodley ALICE L. BODLEY Deputy General Counsel /s/ Jeffrey Sumberg JEFFREY SUMBERG Staff Attorney
ENF%20Fire%20SOG_Preparedness%20Plan.docx