{"id":9801,"date":"2014-01-04T08:30:43","date_gmt":"2013-11-16T10:08:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-11-16T10:08:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9801","title":{"rendered":"CA2: “Special needs” doctrine justifies NYPD policy to breath test officers in shootings"},"content":{"rendered":"

The NYPD officer\u2019s union, Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., sued NYC over its policy requiring a breathalyzer of any officer involved in a shooting. The court previously affirmed denial of summary judgment. Lynch v. City of New York (“Lynch I”)<\/a>, 589 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009). As in Lynch I, the court reaffirms that the \u201cspecial needs\u201d analysis prevails, and judgment is for the city. Lynch v. City of New York<\/a>, 737 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

… In Lynch v. City of New York (“Lynch I”), 589 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009), we affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion preliminarily to enjoin the operation of IO-52, concluding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Fourth Amendment challenge because IO-52 testing was supported by “special needs.” Id. at 100-05.<\/p>\n

While the district court relied on Lynch I’s special needs analysis in granting judgment to the NYPD, plaintiffs submit that Lynch I’s rulings do not control our summary judgment review. See Brody v. Vill. of Port Chester, 345 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 2003). They argue that the record does not in fact support, much less compel, the conclusion that the primary purpose of IO-52 testing is special needs distinct from normal criminal law enforcement. In any event, plaintiffs contend that any such special needs do not sufficiently outweigh officers’ privacy interests to make warrantless, suspicionless breathalyzer testing constitutionally reasonable. Even assuming that a panel reviewing a summary judgment award is free to revisit not only the merits predictions of a prior panel, but also that panel’s resolution of purely legal issues, we see no reason to depart from Lynch I’s sound legal analysis of the special needs doctrine. On our own review of an expanded record as well as relevant precedent, we conclude that IO-52 testing is reasonable under the special needs doctrine and that plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment challenge fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the award of summary judgment in favor of the NYPD.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-9801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9801","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=9801"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9801\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9801"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9801"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9801"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}