Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
1989
Evidence had indicated that alcohol and drug abuse by railroad employees had caused or contributed to a number of significant train accidents. Due to these dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees, the Federal Railroad Administration established regulations requiring mandatory urine and blood tests of employees. These tests were administered to ensure the safety of the workers, especially those who were involved in train accidents and employees who had violayed safety rules. The constitutional amendment in question with this case is the Fourth Amendment. This amendment protects against illegal search and seizure, encompasses the concept of a right to privacy, and we the respondents are arguing that it is unconstitutional to search them for drugs and/or alcohol via testing of their urine or blood. Griswold v. Connecticut upheld the concept of a right to privacy, overturning a state law banning the usage of contraceptive. The US Supreme Court overturned the statute on grounds that behind closed doors, the government has no right to interfere with certain practices. This can be bent to benefit our case in the sense that if these workers want to consume drugs or alcohol behind closed doors and not on the job, it is okay. I personally am on the petitioner's side. They have probable cause (train accidents) so they are not infringing upon the privacy of the railroad workers. The petitioners are concerned about assuring safety and even if it requires blood and urine testing, safety should be the most important
1989
Evidence had indicated that alcohol and drug abuse by railroad employees had caused or contributed to a number of significant train accidents. Due to these dangers of drug and alcohol abuse by railroad employees, the Federal Railroad Administration established regulations requiring mandatory urine and blood tests of employees. These tests were administered to ensure the safety of the workers, especially those who were involved in train accidents and employees who had violayed safety rules. The constitutional amendment in question with this case is the Fourth Amendment. This amendment protects against illegal search and seizure, encompasses the concept of a right to privacy, and we the respondents are arguing that it is unconstitutional to search them for drugs and/or alcohol via testing of their urine or blood. Griswold v. Connecticut upheld the concept of a right to privacy, overturning a state law banning the usage of contraceptive. The US Supreme Court overturned the statute on grounds that behind closed doors, the government has no right to interfere with certain practices. This can be bent to benefit our case in the sense that if these workers want to consume drugs or alcohol behind closed doors and not on the job, it is okay. I personally am on the petitioner's side. They have probable cause (train accidents) so they are not infringing upon the privacy of the railroad workers. The petitioners are concerned about assuring safety and even if it requires blood and urine testing, safety should be the most important