Middlebrooks v. Wayne County
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.
The question presented is whether a person who applies to Wayne County for a permanent position that involves driving heavy equipment near and on public highways1 may, consistent with the Search and Seizure Clauses of the *154state and federal constitutions, be required to submit to urinalysis testing.
The permanent position involves operation of heavy equipment that might result in serious injury from even a "momentary lapse of attention” characteristic of illegal drug use.2
We find that, as a result of his application for such a position with a governmental agency, Middlebrooks had a reduced…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- People v. NashMichigan Supreme Court · 1983
- Sitz v. Department of State PoliceMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
- Menendez v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- City of Riverview v. Sibley LimestoneMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- Turcheck v. Amerifund Financial, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
- Yoost v. CaspariMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
- In re Bibi GuardianshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.