Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against OOIDA in its fight against the electronic logging device mandate.
OOIDA: ELDs Are Invasion Of Driver Privacy And Constitutional Rights
OOIDA argued that the ELD mandate “does not advance safety, is arbitrary and capricious and violates 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the court disagreed, meaning that the December 2017 implementation date is still in effect.
Notably, the court argued that “compliance [with hours of service regulations] has long been an issue, though, because it is easy to insert an error in paper record, whether intentionally or not.”
Court Denies All Five Of OOIDA’s Arguments
The opinion offered by Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton answered each of OOIDA’s objections to the ELD mandate one by one.
- OOIDA argued that ELDs are ineffective because they are not totally automatic. “Petitioners’ reading of the statute seeks to pit one statutory requirement against another rather than allow the agency to balance competing policy goals endorsed by Congress,” the opinion stated.
- OOIDA stated that the definition of driver harassment provided was too narrow. The court found that the agency had done due diligence by seeking input from drivers, motor carriers, and trade organizations on the definition of driver harassment.
- OOIDA claimed that the cost-benefit analysis of the ELD mandate was flawed and did not justify nationwide implementation. The court said the no cost benefit analysis was required and that the studies that were performed were sufficient.
- OOIDA argued that the ELD mandate was an invasion of driver privacy. The court found that the agency “adopted a reasonable approach to protect drivers in this regard.”
- Most significantly, OOIDA attested that the ELD mandate was a violation of the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. The court said, “We find no Fourth Amendment violation. Whether or not the rule itself imposes a search or a seizure, inspection of data recorded on an ELD would fall within the “pervasively regulated industry” exception to the warrant requirement. The agency’s administrative inspection scheme for such information is reasonable.”
Though OOIDA expressed serious disappointment with the court’s ruling, they vow to keep looking for ways to stop the ELD mandate: “Because this issue is of vital importance to our members and all small-business truckers, we are reviewing our next steps to continue our challenge against this regulation.”