NCJ Number
123624
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 80 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1990) Pages: 1018-1051
Date Published
1990
Length
34 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the United States Supreme Court's 1989 decision upholding suspicionless drug testing of certain employees in the Federal Customs Service concludes that the Court unduly relied on the noncriminal context of the urinalysis testing in justifying its departure from the usual requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
Abstract
In National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the Customs Service from requiring employees to undergo a urinalysis if they are seeking promotions or transfers to positions involving drug interdiction or the carrying of a firearm. However, the Court did not clearly explain its reasons for replacing the usual Fourth Amendment standards with a balancing-of-interests tests. The Court majority failed to consider the extent to which urinalysis testing will actually reduce the risk of any potential societal harm. It failed to acknowledge that the absence of any drug problem in the Customs workforce calls into question the benefits of drug testing. Thus, even in noncriminal context, the Court needs to demonstrate special circumstances that make traditional standards impractical. Nevertheless, this decision will probably be the basis for other decisions regarding employee drug testing. Thus, it will probably be used to justify drug testing of any individual who, if corrupted by drugs, could raise risks to national security comparable to those posed by the Customs employees. However, the Customs Service's drug testing program represents a constitutionally unreasonable part of the nation's efforts to address its drug problems. 266 footnotes.