Dimeo v. Griffin, 943 F.

2d 769

NATURE: This is a case challenging the TRO and preliminary injunction issued by the district court against
the Board in conducting random drug testing.

FACTS: The Illinois Racing Board promulgated a rule that requires jockeys and other participants in
horse races in Illinois to submit to random drug testing not founded on any suspicion of wrongdoing.

Vincent Dimeo is a Board Licensee, an outrider, and a parade Marshall (Outriders and Parade Marshals
do not perform duties that can affect the outcome of a race/ they are the other participants in the
race). He works on horseback, leading the horses in the race out of the paddock area, past the reviewing
stands and into the starting gate area. He is charged with ensuring that the horses parade in an orderly
fashion and without incident. The plaintiff brought this class action against the members of the Illinois
Racing Board charging that various provisions of Board's Substance Abuse Rule violate the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The plaintiffs do not argue that the enabling statute is invalid or that the rule is not authorized by it. Nor
do they challenge the entire rule. They do not challenge the part that forbids horse-race participants to
use on the grounds of any race track any illegal drug. They challenge the method of enforcement —
random drug testing, up to five times a year regardless if you are a jockey or merely an outrider or other
participant.

The board argued that random drug testing is reasonable since horseracing is a pervasively
regulated sport. Safety of the outriders, bettors, spectators are at stake. Moreover, revenue would be
compromised if the spectators and bettors would lose their confidence on the sport because of drug
abuse and its influence on players.

The district court granted a TRO and a preliminary injunction. Hence this review.

ISSUE: whether the drug-testing program violates the Fourth Amendment

HELD: NO.

The Racing Board's program of random drug testing of participants in horse racing does not violate the
Fourth Amendment.

The other participants who are in no or little danger themselves — the starters and the outriders — can
endanger other participants, while the assistant starters can endanger both themselves and the jockeys
or drivers; and all these other participants can, if impaired or corrupted by a drug habit, ruin the fairness
of the race. It is desirable, too, not to multiply legal distinctions indefinitely or engender internal
frictions within the racing community by allowing random drug-testing of jockeys and drivers but not of
the other participants in the race.