A judge has issued orders telling the Minnesota State Patrol how to change its practices in order to stop violating truckers' Fourth Amendment rights with its fatigue enforcement program.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association had sued the MSP, alleging that the patrol's roadside inspections to determine fatigue violated truckers' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In January, a judge ruled in favor of OOIDA, but left it up to both sides in the lawsuit to work out, under mediation, how the program would be changed. They weren't able to reach an agreement.
So on Wednesday, Sept. 21, U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank issued a court order.
The judge's final order enjoins the state patrol from violating the Fourth Amendment Rights of House and members of OOIDA and from modifying the current General Order that governs the fatigue enforcement program.
Judge Frank ruled that state patrol officers are to "observe drivers for signs of impairment" from fatigue but cannot expand the inspection unless they have "reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver may be impaired." He also ordered that the questions cannot be untruthful or misleading statements, that drivers are to be told the purpose of the questions if they inquire, and that drivers are not required to answer the questions.
Copies of this final decision were ordered to be posted to the state patrol's website; at all officer locations where commercial vehicle enforcement conducts business; emailed to all current, new and future employees involved in commercial vehicle enforcement; and at all locations accessible to drivers where inspections are conducted.
"Lest we forget, during plaintiff Stephen K. House's detention back on May 10, 2008, the questions he was asked included, but were not limited to, such subjects as neck size, whether he had Playboy magazines in his truck, how many times he opened his eyes at night when his wife was driving, whether he had a television and books in his sleeper berth, and the adequacy of the size of the sleeper berth," Judge Frank wrote in the Sept. 21 decision. "Such inquiries have little to do with the determination of fatigue, except in rare circumstances."
OOIDA and House had originally filed a lawsuit against the MSP and individual officers in May 2009. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of truck drivers placed out of service after patrol officers consulted a checklist and arrived at the conclusion the drivers were "fatigued. In May 2008, House had been pulled over along with other truckers as part of a mass inspection conducted by the MSP.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association had sued the MSP, alleging that the patrol's roadside inspections to determine fatigue violated truckers' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In January, a judge ruled in favor of OOIDA, but left it up to both sides in the lawsuit to work out, under mediation, how the program would be changed. They weren't able to reach an agreement.
So on Wednesday, Sept. 21, U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank issued a court order.
The judge's final order enjoins the state patrol from violating the Fourth Amendment Rights of House and members of OOIDA and from modifying the current General Order that governs the fatigue enforcement program.
Judge Frank ruled that state patrol officers are to "observe drivers for signs of impairment" from fatigue but cannot expand the inspection unless they have "reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver may be impaired." He also ordered that the questions cannot be untruthful or misleading statements, that drivers are to be told the purpose of the questions if they inquire, and that drivers are not required to answer the questions.
Copies of this final decision were ordered to be posted to the state patrol's website; at all officer locations where commercial vehicle enforcement conducts business; emailed to all current, new and future employees involved in commercial vehicle enforcement; and at all locations accessible to drivers where inspections are conducted.
"Lest we forget, during plaintiff Stephen K. House's detention back on May 10, 2008, the questions he was asked included, but were not limited to, such subjects as neck size, whether he had Playboy magazines in his truck, how many times he opened his eyes at night when his wife was driving, whether he had a television and books in his sleeper berth, and the adequacy of the size of the sleeper berth," Judge Frank wrote in the Sept. 21 decision. "Such inquiries have little to do with the determination of fatigue, except in rare circumstances."
OOIDA and House had originally filed a lawsuit against the MSP and individual officers in May 2009. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of truck drivers placed out of service after patrol officers consulted a checklist and arrived at the conclusion the drivers were "fatigued. In May 2008, House had been pulled over along with other truckers as part of a mass inspection conducted by the MSP.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments