Legal Opinion

Middlebrooks v. Wayne County

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1994No. Docket Nos. 96078, 96086, 96090, (Calendar No. 13)PublishedCited by 57 opinions

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

  1. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von RaabSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. People v. NashMichigan Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Sitz v. Department of State PoliceMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Menendez v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1953

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. City of Riverview v. Sibley LimestoneMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Turcheck v. Amerifund Financial, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Yoost v. CaspariMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. In re Bibi GuardianshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API