Seelig v. McMickens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seelig v. McMickens

206 A.D.2d 254, 614 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7144

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 5, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 254 (Seelig v. McMickens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seelig v. McMickens, 206 A.D.2d 254, 614 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pécora, J.), entered August 7, 1986, which denied petitioners’ application for, inter alia, a declaration that respondents’ policy mandating urinalysis tests for the presence of drugs and alcohol for correction officers assigned to the Transportation Division of the Correction Department is unconstitutional, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the reduced expectation of privacy of employees who drive buses and transport inmates for the Department of Correction (see, Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351, 353, affd 69 NY2d 840), and the obvious public security and safety considerations involved, the instant urinalysis/drug testing administered routinely during annual physical examination to all such employees, is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment (see, Jones v McKenzie, 833 F2d 335, vacated sub nom. Jenkins v Jones, 490 US 101, on remand 878 F2d 1476; Laverpool v New York City Tr. Auth., 835 F Supp 1440, 1456). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pécora, J.), entered August 7, 1986, which denied petitioners’ application for, inter alia, a declaration that respondents’ policy mandating urinalysis tests for the presence of drugs and alcohol for correction officers assigned to the Transportation Division of the Correction Department is unconstitutional, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the reduced expectation of privacy of employees who drive buses and transport inmates for the Department of Correction (see, Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351, 353, affd 69 NY2d 840), and the obvious public security and safety considerations involved, the instant urinalysis/drug testing administered routinely during annual physical examination to all such employees, is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment (see, Jones v McKenzie, 833 F2d 335, vacated sub nom. Jenkins v Jones, 490 US 101, on remand 878 F2d 1476; Laverpool v New York City Tr. Auth., 835 F Supp 1440, 1456). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 254, 614 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seelig-v-mcmickens-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack