Court Opinion

ID: 9523425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:41:52.519095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:35.566909
License: Public Domain

Nolan, J.
(dissenting). The court today has extended the reach of art. 14 to prohibit drug testing of all licensees of the State Racing Commission. This is regrettable and not at all required by art. 14.
Historically, the racing industry has been a closely regulated industry. The public interest is significantly high. It does not require much imagination to grasp the mischief which can be produced by licensees under the influence of dmgs.
The court strains (unpersuasively, I believe) to remove this case from the well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement in administrative searches. The search here is limited “in time, place, and manner.” Commonwealth v. Blinn, 399 Mass. 126, 129 (1987). The comprehensive regulatory scheme requires testing to be carried out on the licensed premises. All licensees have been informed of the testing. Under all these *708conditions, it is plainly wrong to conclude that the regulation invades a licensee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in contravention of his rights under art. 14.
For these reasons, I dissent.