{"id":3629,"date":"2010-03-23T08:28:58","date_gmt":"2009-12-13T11:43:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-13T11:43:44","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3629","title":{"rendered":"CA2: NYPD policy to do BAC test in all duty firearms discharges with injury is constitutional under &#8220;special needs&#8221; exception"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The NYPD policy that officers who discharge their firearms resulting in death or injury must be subjected to a breath test is constitutional. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca2.uscourts.gov\/decisions\/isysquery\/354af904-ee31-40d3-9e20-c603457b5401\/1\/doc\/08-5250-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http:\/\/www.ca2.uscourts.gov\/decisions\/isysquery\/354af904-ee31-40d3-9e20-c603457b5401\/1\/hilite\/\">Lynch v. City of New York<\/a>, 589 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We hold as follows: (1) the District Court did not make a &#8220;clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence&#8221; when it found that the primary purpose of the breathalyzer policy was not the NYPD&#8217;s &#8220;general interest in crime control&#8221; and thus fell under the &#8220;special needs&#8221; doctrine of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; (2) the fact that crime control was one purpose&#8211;but not the primary purpose&#8211;of the breathalyzer policy does not bar the application of the &#8220;special needs&#8221; doctrine to the breathalyzer policy; and (3) based on the record at this stage of the proceedings, the breathalyzer policy is reasonable under the three-factor balancing test of the &#8220;special needs&#8221; doctrine. We conclude, therefore, that the District Court&#8217;s denial of plaintiffs&#8217; motion for a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.<\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>Finally, we recognize that the NYPD&#8217;s reputation in the eyes of the public is directly tied to its effectiveness as a police force. See, e.g., Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2002) (explaining that negative &#8220;public perception &#8230; [can] harm the mission of the Police Department&#8221;); see also Lidster, 540 U.S. at 425 (noting that information volunteered by the public plays a &#8220;vital role in police investigatory work&#8221;). Thus, to the extent that the breathalyzer policy improves the NYPD&#8217;s public reputation, it furthers an important governmental interest.<\/p>\n<p>In light of each of these factors, we conclude that &#8220;&#8216;the special need[s]'&#8221; asserted by the NYPD outweigh the &#8220;&#8216;privacy interest advanced'&#8221; by plaintiffs. Amerson, 483 F.3d at 83 (quoting Cassidy, 471 F.3d at 75). Accordingly, we hold that, on the record before us, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a &#8220;likelihood of success on the merits,&#8221; Plaza Health, 878 F.2d at 580, because the breathalyzer program is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, based on this record. As a result, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs&#8217; motion for a preliminary injunction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3629\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}