NCJ Number
114427
Journal
Brigham Young University Law Review Volume: 1987 Issue: 4 Dated: (1987) Pages: 1239-1269
Date Published
1987
Length
31 pages
Annotation
The predominant concern expressed by courts and commentators with regard to employee drug testing is that random testing by Government employers violates the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the fourth amendment.
Abstract
Opponents of random drug testing argue that the fourth amendment is implicated because (1) urinalysis may reveal confidential medical information beyond whether or not the individual is an illicit drug user, (2) a testing administrator must actually watch the employee produce the sample. However, the fourth amendment does not afford protection against all governmental invasions of privacy. Historically, the fourth amendment was not implicated by the intrusion unless information obtained from the intrusion could be used in a criminal proceeding. While this interpretation was challenged in the early 1970's, there is some movement among U.S. Supreme Court members to partially revitalize the traditional view. It is argued that the traditional view should be totally resurrected for two reasons. First, it interjects some certainty into fourth amendment jurisprudence by providing a demarcating line for determining which actions of governmental agencies implicate the fourth amendment. Second, it is more consistent with the theory that the fourth amendment does not guarantee a general right of privacy and that some privacy protections are better left to the democratic process than to the courts. 151 footnotes.