omitted). The Tenth Circuit relied on its decision in United States v. Seslar, which held that “the closely regulated industry line of cases does not justify the warrantless search of unregulated persons.” United States v. Herrera 444 F.3d at 1245 (quoting United States v. Seslar, 996 F.2d at 1063). In United States v. Seslar, the Tenth Circuit held that, “because the justification for permitting warrantless [regulatory] searches is that persons doing business in closely regulated industries have a significantly reduced expectation of privacy,” id. at 1061, such a stop was not justified by the regulatory scheme if the truck did not fall -within the parameters of that regulation, see id. at 1062-63. See also State v. Campbell, 19 Kan.App.2d 778, 875 P.2d 1010, 1013-14 (Kan.Ct.App.1994)(<HOLDING>); Dominguez v. State, 290 Ark. 428, 720 S.W.2d
holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable holding that totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion that defendant was transporting drugs and therefore officer was justified in seizing truck holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights holding random stop of rental truck that was transporting private property and thus was not subject to kansas regulations governing motor carriers violated the fourth amendment holding random traffic stops for license and registration checks are contrary to fourth amendment