NCJ Number
117714
Journal
University of Detroit Law Review Volume: 65 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1988) Pages: 315-331
Date Published
1988
Length
17 pages
Annotation
The constitutionality of mandatory drug testing for public sector employees at Federal and State levels is discussed.
Abstract
Federal and State courts are increasingly rejecting public sector drug testing programs on various constitutional grounds. The strongest and most often cited argument for rejecting mandatory urinalysis is that such testing is an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing for public sector employees. Lower Federal and State courts hearing such cases have relied on a number of Supreme Court rulings in interpreting constitutional amendments regarding drug testing. Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. While some courts have concluded that government workers may have a diminished expectation of privacy in comparison with the public at large, other courts have required some quantum of individualized suspicion before drug testing can be conducted. States have attempted to uphold mandatory drug testing by arguing that government employees voluntarily consent to drug testing and voluntary consent does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Courts have not accepted this argument, however, finding that consent obtained under the threat of disciplinary action is coercive and thus unconstitutional. The real issue in mandatory drug testing involves balancing individual versus government interests. Most courts hold that, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, individual constitutional rights are not outweighed by governmental interests. 145 references.