Court Upholds Warrantless Searches at Tracks, Except in Dorms

• Email
• Print
• Tweet

A federal appeals court has upheld the ability of regulators in New York to conduct unannounced searches of racetracks without warrants to investigate illegal equine drug use and other activities that may affect the integrity of racing in the state.

But the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the investigators from the state Racing and Wagering Board went too far in 1997 when they also searched dormitories used by grooms at Yonkers Raceway as part of a sweeping search looking for evidence of illegal drug use and prostitution. The court said the board can perform the searches in all areas of a racetrack except dormitories, which the panel said constitutes a person's residence and, therefore, has additional Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures.

The case, Anobile v. Pelligrino, was brought by seven owners, trainers, drivers and a groom at Yonkers against top officials at the state racing board in a challenge that could state officials said could have severely limited investigations of illegal activities in the racing industry if the court had ruled against the state.

State Racing and Wagering Board Chairman Michael Hoblock called the decision "a major victory'' for his office, though he said the agency was considering an appeal to the court's ruling that searching track dormitories without warrants is unconstitutional.+

"It's very important to give us the authority to deal with some of the problems that exist,'' Hoblock said of the board's ability to search the tracks for contraband that could affect performance of horses. "Unfortunately, we've always got a few people, and emphasis a few, who choose to take advantage in a race. It's those people we are trying to find and deal with ... and the ability to have these random inspections is very important. Otherwise, how do you find these things?'' Hoblock said.

Richard Fulfree, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, was unavailable for comment.

The appeals panel upheld a lower court ruling that, among other things, noted that individuals licensed by the racing board sign a waiver that gives advance permission to the board to conduct searches of the licensee or his property at a racetrack and that there is a "substantial'' government interest at stake.

The 1997 search, involving 23 investigators led by Joel Leveson, the agency's acting director of investigations at the time, following reports "compliance problems,'' which allegedly included unlicensed people on the track, security lapses, prostitution in the stable area and use of illegal drugs on horses and track workers. The 13-hour search, which yielded a host of drugs and paraphernalia, included inspections of about 100 dorm rooms. Six of the plaintiffs had their licenses suspended following the discovery of such things as needles, syringes and drugs such as corisone.

The appeals court ruled that the greater latitude to conduct warrantless searches of commercial property, like racetracks, than residences "reflects the fact that the expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity'' of someone's home. The searches of places like barns and other areas involved in the highly regulated activity of horse racing were legal, in part, because state regulations provide licensed individuals "with sufficient notice of th likelihood of a search to satisfy the Fourth Amendment,'' the court said.

But the court said dormitories at racetracks are, for the purpose of executing warrantless searches, "enjoy the sanctity according private residences.''

"Because homes receive the highest Fourth Amendment protections, we conclude that such a search is highly intrusive,'' Judge Fred I. Parker, writing for majority, said of the Yonkers search of the dormitories. Permitting the racing board to conduct warrantless searches of track facilities like barns and vehicles, but not dormitories, "sufficiently protects the integrity of New York's racing industry,'' the court said.

Senior Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, in a dissenting opinion, said "one does not need to have the learning of a Rhodes scholar'' to understand the provision that licensees sign agreeing to searches by the racing board. He chastised his fellow judges for not including dormitories in the searches, claiming the majority of the court "clearly err in their apparent belief that the betting public would not be adversely affected by information that the back stretch of one of New York state's major race tracks was invested with all sorts of criminal wrongdoing and that this would have no deleterious effect on the income derived by the state from their wagering.''

The judge said "no one compelled'' people to use the dormitories as homes and "no one forced applicants to participate in the horse racing business.''

• Email
• Print
• Tweet