A hearing is scheduled June 30 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and several member plaintiffs pursue their case against members of the Minnesota State Patrol over unauthorized and unlawful out-of-service orders for driver fatigue.

The Association filed the first lawsuit May 13, 2009, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of truck drivers placed out of service after members of the Minnesota State Patrol arbitrarily arrived at the conclusion the drivers were “fatigued.”

The complaint was lodged against senior officers in the Minnesota State Patrol, including Col. Mark Dunaski and Capt. Ken Urquhart, as well as against individual troopers who have issued actual out-of-service orders in the field. 

Captain Urquhart is Commander of the Commercial Vehicle Section and, according to OOIDA’s attorney Paul Cullen Sr., has been “an outspoken promoter of this misguided campaign against imagined fatigue.” Members of the Minnesota State Patrol were instructed to consider the presence of a TV, reading material, a cell phone – to name a few – as signs of fatigue.

OOIDA’s investigations revealed that the enforcement program not only lacked medical or scientific justification, but also infringed on truckers’ constitutional rights.

The lawsuit charges that drivers were denied their rights to a hearing on the out-of-service orders and that the regulation under which the orders were issued fails both to define fatigue and to establish a standard under which a driver would know when to stop driving.

The state’s enforcement procedures – which lead to arbitrary determinations of driver fatigue – are challenged in the lawsuit on constitutional grounds; the lack of due process; and warrantless search and seizure.

Research pertaining to that lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s arbitrary enforcement of fatigue revealed that the state had not adopted the federal regulations and that it enacted no regulations of its own. Therefore, no regulations existed to enforce governing interstate truckers.

That discovery immediately led to the Association’s second lawsuit, filed Nov. 20, 2009, with the Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District. OOIDA and several member plaintiffs filed against the state of Minnesota, the head of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and named members of the Minnesota State Police.

In that case, OOIDA claims that because the state had not adopted federal regulations and enacted no regulations of its own, it had no authority to issues citations to drivers and must return fines and reverse the damage to drivers’ records. The second lawsuit recently was recently dismissed by the trial court. OOIDA plans to appeal.

OOIDA’s attorney, Paul D. Cullen Sr. of The Cullen Law Firm in DC, said he regarded the dismissal of this separate case as a “minor speed bump along the road” and that it should not have any serious impact on OOIDA’s fatigue litigation.

 – By Sandi Soendker, managing editor
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Senior Editor Jami Jones contributed to this article.

New class action lawsuit filed by OOIDA

(Grain Valley, Mo., Nov. 20, 2009) –The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Minnesota seeking refunds on all commercial vehicle inspection citations issued to truckers prior to August 1, 2009. The suit also seeks to expunge such citations from motor carrier and driver records.

OOIDA’s suit charges that the state of Minnesota never adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) regulations into state law and that the U.S. Department of Transportation never authorized Minnesota to enforce federal regulations.

The lawsuit is new and separate from the previous action OOIDA took against Minnesota in May 2009 with regard to a fatigue checklist.

OOIDA contends that prior to Aug. 1, 2009, there were no motor carrier safety regulations in existence that officers of the Minnesota State Patrol were authorized to enforce against interstate motor carriers or their drivers.  According to documents obtained from FMCSA under the Freedom of Information Act, Minnesota had not adopted safety regulations of its own and was not authorized to enforce federal regulations.

“The state of Minnesota finally got around to incorporating federal motor carrier safety regulations into state law this August when FMCSA threatened to cut off federal subsidies to Minnesota under MCSAP,” said OOIDA President Jim Johnston. MCSAP stands for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.

“They had no authority to issue tickets or put people out of service. It’s high time to give back what is owed and reverse the damage to drivers’ records,” added Johnston.

The OOIDA suit charges that unauthorized citations and out-of-service orders issued by officers of the Minnesota State Patrol prior to August 1, 2009 deprived both drivers and interstate motor carriers of their rights to due process of law under both the United States and Minnesota constitutions.  The suit seeks damages against Minnesota officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and restitution by the state of Minnesota of fines paid.  If the suit is successful, the statute of limitations would require that all fines imposed for six years prior to the suit be returned.

The suit was filed Nov. 20, 2009 in the Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County).  A copy of the complaint is available here

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is the largest national trade association representing the interests of small-business trucking professionals and professional truck drivers. The Association currently has more than 158,000 members nationwide. OOIDA was established in 1973 and is headquartered in the greater Kansas City, Mo., area.