Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. - Significance, Highly Intrusive Searches Should Be Based On Probable Cause
Samuel K. Skinner, U.S. Secretary of Transportation
Railway Labor Executives' Association, et al.
That regulations requiring the testing of bodily fluids after a train accident do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of railroad employees.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Richard Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Lawrence M. Mann
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall
Date of Decision
21 March 1989
Upheld regulations that required railroads to test blood, urine, and breath of employees involved in train accidents, deciding that such tests did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
- Witt, Elder, ed. The Supreme Court A to Z. CQ's Encyclopedia of American Government. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1993.
- Soldal v. Cook County - Significance, Impact, The Plain View Exception
- Simon Schuster v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board - Significance, Crime For Profit
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. - Significance
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. - Highly Intrusive Searches Should Be Based On Probable Cause
- Other Free Encyclopedias