Interesting court case involving a city employee who was known to have a problem with alcohol but nevertheless was hired to work for the city. This was a political hire as a reward for working on the mayor's election.
Employee comes to work with alcohol on his breath. Drives a truck. Is ordered to the hospital by city supervisor who suspsects the employee has been drinking and while at the hospital is tested and found to have a blood alcohol level above the state limits.
Now he lawyered up and the lawyers are asking that the evidence of his intoxication while on the job be inadmissible because he was forced as a part of his employment to take a drug test.
If I understand the logic presented in this case it is alright to fire an employee with a drinking problem who is out driving a truck in our city but not alright to arrest and cite this person for driving while drunk.
Do we have a double standard for city employees or do we just not care if we have drunks driving around in our community.
... will do the sensible thing and toss the whole thing out. It's disgusting how long "lawyering up" delays sensible legal resolutions.
At any rate, the evidence of his intoxication should be in support of his supervisor's observation of "alcohol on the breath". So he should be fired at any rate. Right? So, what is he really after? ... a SETTLEMENT from the city (i.e. our tax dollars), perhaps?
I remember when this story first came out in the local news- Carty (or his mouthpiece) was quoted as saying something along the lines that this man was hired because "everybody deserves a second chance." This guy had more than a handful of DUI's under his belt. That's more than a handful of "second chances" that he blew.
I've always been a little baffled about the courts' interpretation of the 5th Amendment. It seems I've read before that you don't have to submit to a blood alcohol test because that could be seen as being self-incriminating. However, there are obviously a multitude of cases where blood alcohol content was taken and used in court.
There are definitely two issues here. The first is that he was fired because he had alcohol on his breath (which is entirely legit and doesn't even require a formal BAC test IMO). The second is a criminal case against him for driving drunk. Does a non-police city employee have the authority to order someone (employee or not) to take a BAC and then have it be used in a criminal case? I don't know. I guess that's what the court will decide.