NCJ Number
117176
Journal
Law and Contemporary Problems Volume: 51 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1988) Pages: 253-297
Date Published
1988
Length
45 pages
Annotation
Following a review of the nature and scope of illegal drug use in the United States, its costs, and the prevalence of drug testing in the workplace, this article reviews the competing interests that should be considered in drawing the fourth amendment line between permissible and impermissible bodily searches in the absence of individualized suspicion.
Abstract
Significant societal interests have been advanced in support of employee drug testing. Testing may increase employee safety and efficiency, enhance the perceived integrity of an employer, and augment drug law enforcement efforts by reducing demand for drugs. The individual interests implicated by drug testing also are formidable. Urine collection procedures are highly intrusive and violate normal expectations of individual privacy. Moreover, tests may be inaccurate, falsely implicating innocent individuals; and they reveal a broad array of private information, such as pregnancy or medication for a psychological condition, that are not the legitimate concern of employers. The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari on two drug testing cases: National Treasury Employees Union vs. Von Raab, and Railway Labor Executives Association vs. Burnley. If upheld, drug testing without individualized suspicion will represent the first instance in which individual interests are subordinated to societal interests to a previously unheard of extent and without sufficient justification. Permitting the Government to monitor citizens' bodily fluids in order to supervise their activities represents a reduction of individual rights that should not be permitted without a more exacting scrutiny than drug testing can withstand. 292 footnotes.