Can a plaintiff maintain a Fourth Amendment claim against a warrantless search of his blood and urine?

Similarly, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., supra, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, the court faced the constitutionality of federal regulations requiring the [8 Cal.4th 86] testing of the blood and urine of railway workers involved in certain train accidents. Neither a warrant nor a showing of individualized suspicion was required under the regulations in question. In addition to concluding the government's interest in such information was compelling, the court reasoned "the expectations of privacy of covered employees are diminished by reason of their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety, a goal dependent, in substantial part, on the health and fitness of covered employees." (Id. at p. 627, 109 S.Ct. at p. 1418.) "Though some of the privacy interests implicated by the toxicological testing at issue reasonably might be viewed as significant in other contexts, logic and history show that a diminished expectation of privacy attaches to information relating to the physical condition of covered employees and to this reasonable means of procuring such information." (Id. at p. 628, 109 S.Ct. at p. 1419.) In short, the covered railway workers could not maintain a successful Fourth Amendment claim against the warrantless search because their expectation of privacy in their blood and urine was sufficiently reduced by the circumstances of their employment.