| Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
(No. 87-1555)
___ |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Syllabus
| Opinion
[ Kennedy ] | Concurrence
[ Stevens ] | Dissent
[ Marshall ] |
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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. [p635]
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.