OOIDA takes challenge of ELD mandate back to court

By Land Line staff | Thursday, March 31, 2016

For years, OOIDA has vehemently objected to a federal mandate requiring electronic logging devices in trucks, making its argument on every level. OOIDA President Jim Johnston says when sensible approaches have been exhausted, there’s no choice but to go to the legal arena to expose an “outrageous, expensive and heavy-handed” mandate. And that’s where this battle has again landed.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit accepted OOIDA’s Petition for Review – a document that presents a convincing battery of legal challenges. The petition was filed in Dec. 11, 2015, but did not outline the arguments. This week’s filing lays out the arguments the Association will use.

In its appeal of a government mandate requiring electronic monitoring devices on commercial vehicles, OOIDA submits a powerful case that the mandate does not advance safety, is arbitrary and capricious, and violates 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
OOIDA stated these and other arguments in a legal brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on Tuesday, March 29. Click here to read the entire brief.
 
OOIDA filed the appeal to challenge a new regulation from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that requires interstate truckers to install electronic logging devices or ELDs in their vehicles.

“The agency provided no proof of their claims that this mandate would improve highway safety. They didn’t even attempt to compare the safety records of trucking companies that use ELDs and those that do not,” said Jim Johnston, OOIDA president and CEO. “There is simply no proof that the costs, burdens and privacy infringements associated with this mandate are justified.”

“For most truckers, a truck is not just a vehicle but is also an office and a home away from home,” continued Johnston. “This mandate means monitoring the movement and activities of real people for law enforcement purposes and is an outrageous intrusion on the privacy of professional truckers.”
 
Under federal hours-of-service regulations, commercial truck drivers are limited in the number of hours they can work and drive daily as well as on a weekly basis. The FMCSA’s mandate requires that truck drivers use ELDs to track their driving and non-driving activities even though such devices can only track movement and location of a vehicle. The FMCSA finalized the rule last year for all interstate commercial motor vehicles model year 2000 and newer.
 
OOIDA also listed other arguments in the legal brief requesting the court to vacate the rule.
 
The Association pointed out that the mandate fails to comply with a congressional statute requiring ELDs to accurately and automatically record changes in drivers’ duty status. ELDs can only track vehicle movement and must rely on drivers to manually input changes in duty status.  Therefore, OOIDA contends the mandated devices are no more reliable than paper logbooks for recording hours of service compliance.
 
On the issue of searches and seizures, OOIDA said the Supreme Court has previously found that prolonged use of a warrantless GPS tracking device on a vehicle is clearly a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
 
OOIDA said that FMCSA’s attempt to compel installation of ELD devices without a warrant is an unconstitutional seizure.
 
The Association also said the current mandate fails to ensure that ELDs will not be used to harass drivers.
 
OOIDA has previously challenged a similar mandate in the courts. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit vacated a proposed electronic logbook rule citing FMCSA’s failure to ensure the devices would not be used to harass drivers. 

Sign up for eNews here and get all of Land Line’s headlines, features and special reports delivered to your inbox on a daily basis, absolutely free. All it takes is an email address.

Copyright © OOIDA

Comments