\u201cDespite Fourth Amendment implications, \u2018a public employee union acting as the exclusive bargaining agent may consent to drug testing on behalf of the employees it represents.\u2019\u201d (quoting Bolden v. SEPTA, 953 F.2d 807, 828 (3d Cir. 1991). Dolginko v. Long Island Rail Rd., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54238 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
GPS information putting defendant blocks away was available to the officer drafting the \u201cconfusingly written\u201d search warrant, but not looking and relying on other information wasn\u2019t a false statement or an omission with reckless disregard. United States v. Hawthorne, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52304 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Salvation Army employee or volunteer saying \u201ccall the police\u201d on plaintiff was not joint action for Fourth Amendment purposes. Van Horn v. Salvation Army, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52411 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant does not retain a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in a buccal swab sample after it is taken \u2026.\u201d People v. J.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 50307(U), 2024 NYLJ LEXIS 925 (Putnam Co. Mar. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cDespite Fourth Amendment implications, \u2018a public employee union acting as the exclusive bargaining agent may consent to drug testing on behalf of the employees it represents.\u2019\u201d (quoting Bolden v. SEPTA, 953 F.2d 807, 828 (3d Cir. 1991). Dolginko v. Long … Continue reading