L.Ed.2d 720 (1985); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). The cases in this latter category reflect the permissible exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirements that the Supreme Court has recognized, those being “special” interests or needs searches, undertaken to further some important and legitimate societal interest, other than the general interest in law enforcement. Reflective of such interests are random prison searches designed to ensure the security of penal institutions, see Hudson, at 529, 104 S.Ct. at 3202, 82 L.Ed.2d at 404-405, random drug and alcohol testing in occupations directly impacting the public safety, ensuring public safety by regulating certain occupations, Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 679, 109 S.Ct. at 1398, 103 L.Ed.2d at 710-711 (<HOLDING>); Skinner, 489 U.S. at 634, 109 S.Ct. at 1422,
recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship recognizing limits on an individuals right to privacy and requiring the government to move a compelling interest only if there will be disclosure of protected information holding reasonable a us customs regulation requiring urine testing of all employees who applied for a promotion that required the carrying of a gun and involvement with drug interdiction given that the governments compelling interest in safeguarding borders and public safety outweighed diminished privacy expectation