10 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Jones

    565 U.S. 400 (2012)   Cited 1,847 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Holding that installation of a tracking device was "a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted"
  2. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn

    489 U.S. 602 (1989)   Cited 2,188 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding the government's "interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety, like its ... operation of a government office, school, or prison" justified subjecting employees engaged in safety-sensitive tasks to warrantless drug and alcohol testing
  3. O'Connor v. Ortega

    480 U.S. 709 (1987)   Cited 953 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that requiring a warrant for government employers’ work-related searches of employees’ workspaces "would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of business and would be unreasonable"
  4. City of Ontario v. Quon

    560 U.S. 746 (2010)   Cited 333 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the police department's warrantless search of a police officer's pager was reasonable because it was not excessive in scope and was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose
  5. Brann Stuart Co. v. Consolidated Sun Ray

    396 U.S. 840 (1969)   Cited 70 times
    Applying exclusionary rule to administrative proceedings before liquor authority with respect to imposition of penalties on license holders
  6. Matter of Caruso v. Ward

    72 N.Y.2d 432 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 55 times
    Upholding random urinalysis of police officers volunteering for organized crime unit; noting that officers "have a very diminished expectation of privacy due to their pursuit of service in the elite unit based on conditions known in advance."
  7. Matter of Finn's Liq. v. State Liq. Auth

    24 N.Y.2d 647 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 92 times
    In Matter of Finn's Liq. Shop v State Liq. Auth. (24 N.Y.2d 647), this Court held, without equivocation, that the exclusionary rule applies to administrative proceedings as well as to criminal prosecutions.
  8. Cunningham v. New York State Dep't of Labor

    89 A.D.3d 1347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2011-11-23 In the Matter of Michael A. CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. Corey Stoughton, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent. LAHTINEN Corey Stoughton, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent. Before: SPAIN

  9. Matter of Allen v. Murphy

    37 A.D.2d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)   Cited 3 times

    June 29, 1971. Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department. Victor J. Herwitz for petitioners. Edmund B. Hennefeld of counsel ( Stanley Buchsbaum with him on the brief; J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel), for respondent. Per Curiam. In these CPLR article 78 proceedings (transferred to the Appellate Division by orders of Special Term, LUPIANO, J.) petitioners seek a review and annulment of respondent's determination, dated October 7, 1970, dismissing them

  10. Section 7804 - Procedure

    N.Y. CPLR 7804   Cited 4,541 times
    Characterizing Article 78 proceeding as a “special proceeding” and specifying where such a proceeding may be “brought”