# Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. > Supreme Court of the United States · March 21, 1989 · 489 U.S. 602 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431607 ## Case - **Full name:** SKINNER, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Et Al. v. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSOCIATION Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 21, 1989 - **Citations:** 489 U.S. 602; 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 224; 1989 CCH OSHD 28,476; 57 U.S.L.W. 4324; 13 OSHC (BNA) 2065; 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2857; 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,791; 109 S. Ct. 1402; 103 L. Ed. 2d 639; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1568 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens - **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Stevens, Marshall, Brennan - **Cited by:** 2,095 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Commonwealth v. Danforth, 395 Pa. Super. 1 (1990). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431607 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that "the Government’s interest in dispensing with the warrant requirement is at its strongest when, as here, ‘the burden of obtaining a warrant is likely to frustrate the governmental purpose behind the search' ” and further explaining that because "alcohol and other … - holding, in discussing required disclosure to Government of medical information, “[wjhile this procedure permits the Government to learn certain private medical facts that an employee might prefer not to disclose, there is no indication that the Government does not treat this … - holding, in discussing required disclosure to Government of medical information, “[w]hile this procedure permits the Government to learn certain private medical facts that an employee might prefer not to disclose, there is no indication that the Government does not treat this … - holding that “[w]e have long recognized that a compelled intrusion into the body for blood to be analyzed for alcohol content must be deemed a Fourth Amendment search.... This physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes an expectation of privacy that society is… - holding that regulations permitting drug testing of railroad employees without individualized suspicion did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that absent a persuasive showing that the administrative testing scheme was a pretext to gather evidence for criminal prosecution, t… ## Opinion text Justice Stevens, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. In my opinion the public interest in determining the causes of serious railroad accidents adequately supports the validity of the challenged regulations. I am not persuaded, however, that the interest in deterring the use of alcohol or drugs is either necessary or sufficient to justify the searches authorized by these regulations. I think it a dubious proposition that the regulations significantly deter the use of alcohol and drugs by hours of service employees. Most people — and I would think most railroad employees as well — do not go to work with the expectation that they may be involved in a major accident, particularly one causing such catastrophic results as loss of life or the release of hazardous material requiring an evacuation. Moreover, even if they are conscious of the possibilities that such an accident might occur and that alcohol or drug use might be a contributing factor, if the risk of serious personal injury does not deter their use of these substances, it seems highly unlikely that the additional threat of loss of employment would have any effect on their behavior. *635 For this reason, I do not join the portions of Part III of the Court’s opinion that rely on a deterrence rationale; I do, however, join the balance of the opinion and the Court’s judgment. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431607. Public record. Not legal advice.