Case Name: Pat HENSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT; Willie Shaw, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-16
Citations: 624 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 15-30389
Parties: Pat HENSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT; Willie Shaw, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
Pat HENSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT; Willie Shaw, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-30389.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 16, 2015.
Revised Dec. 17, 2015.
Pamela Nathan Breedlove, Breedlove Law Firm, Bossier City, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Edwin H. Byrd, III, Pettiette, Armand, Dunkelman, Woodley, Byrd & Cromwell, L.L.P., Shreveport, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Former Shreveport Police Department officer Pat Hensley appeals the summary judgment for alleged federal and Louisiana violations stemming from a blood test for alcohol and narcotics administered at Defendants' request.
. Our thorough review of the briefs in this matter, the pertinent parts of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel reveals no error. The district court properly held that the blood test, which constituted a search, was constitutional because Defendants' individualized suspicion of wrongdoing satisfied the reasonableness standard upon which nonin-vestigatory, work-related searches rest. The district court similarly did not err in balancing Defendants' interests against Hensley's privacy interest. Defendants' articulated interests — including the need for supervision, control, and efficient operation of the workforce and the interest in and responsibility for public safety — clearly outweigh the intrusion on Hensley's expectation of privacy. Our findings foreclose Hensley's additional arguments which flow from his perception that Defendants violated his rights. Thus, we also find no violation of Louisiana law.
We, therefore, affirm the summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted by Hensley.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.