OOIDA’s 45-page filing with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest in the ongoing lawsuit brought by OOIDA and two truckers, who are asking the court to strike down the ELD mandate and block it from taking effect.
The brief comes in response to a 60-page filing made in June by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, who defended its mandate against the harsh criticisms leveled by OOIDA in the original March 2016-filed lawsuit.
OOIDA again argues in its latest brief the rule violates truckers’ 4th Amendment protections against illegal search and seizures and does not meet Congress’ requirements for the rule. The group also argues the mandate still opens the door for truckers to be harassed by their employers via the devices and does not stand up to a cost benefit analysis. The costs associated with complying with mandate — especially for small carriers and independent truckers — heavily outweighs the benefits, OOIDA argues.
FMCSA asserted in its June-filed legal defense of the rule that trucking is a “pervasively regulated industry,” thereby meaning truckers’ 4th Amendment rights are not at risk of being violated by the ELD mandate.
OOIDA argues otherwise. “By statute ELDs are intended to serve the ordinary needs of law enforcement. This use is not covered by the pervasively regulated industry exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement,” OOIDA and its legal team argue in their brief. “Motor carriers and drivers are compelled to install ELDs under the threat of forfeiting their ability to stay in business. The encroachment on a driver’s property interest is just as severe whether the physical intrusion is accomplished by surreptitious trespass or under compulsion of law.”
The association harps heavily in its latest filing on the lack of a true cost-benefit analysis of ELD adoption, saying the DOT erred in not providing such.
