Activist Ronald Calzone loses dump-truck inspection challenge

A federal appeals court has rejected a political activist’s arguments that a Missouri law allowing random inspections of commercial vehicles without probable cause is unconstitutional.

On July 26, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ronald Calzone in his suit against Eric T. Olson, the superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

Calzone is the director of Missouri First, a nonprofit organization that promotes free-market and limited government policies. According to the opinion, written by Judge Steven Colloton, Calzone operates a dump truck as part of his work on his horse and cattle ranch, Eagle Wings Ranch in Maries County.

In 2013, while driving his dump truck, he was stopped by a state trooper under a Missouri law that allows for random roadside inspections of commercial motor vehicles, according to the opinion. Calzone objected to the stop and refused to allow the inspection.

He filed suit in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against former Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, former Attorney General Chris Koster and former highway patrol superintendent J. Bret Johnson, seeking to block the state from authorizing and directing patrol officers from inspecting his truck without individualized suspicion that he failed to comply with state law.

In 2017, the 8th Circuit ruled Calzone lacked standing to sue the governor and attorney general, but the court allowed his case against the highway patrol superintendent to proceed.

Upon remand, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. denied Calzone’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief, prompting Calzone’s second appeal to the 8th Circuit.

While the Fourth and 14th Amendments prohibit the state from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, Colloton said property owners have a reduced expectation of privacy when their commercial property is involved in a “closely regulated” industry, where the operation of their property poses a clear and significant risk to public welfare.

In that context, warrantless seizure and inspection may be reasonable without probable cause, he said.

On appeal, Calzone asserted he is not part of a “closely regulated” industry, and therefore Missouri’s inspection law is unconstitutional as it is applied to him.

In order to invoke its authority to conduct random inspections, Colloton said the state is required to show that its regulatory scheme advances a substantial government interest, that warrantless inspections are necessary to further the regulatory scheme and that the rules governing the inspections provide notice that the property may be searched.

Colloton said Missouri law authorizes the highway patrol to conduct random inspections of commercial motor vehicles. Additionally, he said the 8th Circuit has held that commercial trucking is a “closely regulated” industry, and that Missouri’s regulatory scheme for the inspection of commercial vehicles is constitutional.

“By choosing to operate a heavy truck in furtherance of a commercial venture, Calzone subjects himself to a pervasive regulatory scheme and has a reduced expectation of privacy,” Colloton said.

Judges Lavenski Smith and Ralph R. Erickson concurred.

Dave Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri in Mexico represented Calzone.

“It is, of course, very concerning that the 8th Circuit has abandoned the logic that the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently applied when it comes to both the closely regulated industry exception of the 14th Amendment and suspicionless stop of vehicles,” he said.

He said the 8th Circuit was not able to say his client is part of a closely regulated industry, “because he’s not.”

Roland said he and his client intend to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The attorney general’s office represented the state. A spokeswoman for the office declined to comment.

The case is Calzone v. Olson, 18-1674.