No Fourth Amendment Violation to Force Police to Take Breathalyzer

Don't you just love police unions?  Police unions do nothing if not seek double standards.  They want the police to follow a different standard from the rest of us.  Not higher standards, of course - lower standards.  Thus, in Lynch v. The City of New York, No. 08-5250 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2009) (here):

Plaintiffs-appellants are union representatives of police officers employed by the New York City Police Department (“NYPD” or “Department”). They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (George B. Daniels, Judge) challenging the constitutionality of an NYPD policy that requires that a breathalyzer test—which measures the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream—be administered to an NYPD officer immediately after he or she causes injury or death as a result of firing his or her gun. Plaintiffs moved in the District Court to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the breathalyzer policy, and the District Courtdenied the motion. Plaintiffs now appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction. We affirm.
The cops lost, for reasons you can read here.

Incidentally, in Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the exclusionary rule was unnecessary because of "[a]nother development over the past half-century that deters civil-rights violations," namely, "the increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline."

Yet, here, the police union challenged a policy that, in cop-speak, only a person with something to hide would be against.  How's that for police professionalism?

0 comments: