Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Testing Police and Corrections Officers for Drug Use after Skinner and Von Raab

1995; SPAEF; Volume: 19; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

2327-4433

Thomas J. Hickey, Sue Titus Reid,

Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

INTRODUCTION Being criminal justice system employee is not easy. Popular literature and television programs that focus on criminal justice system have cataloged many problems faced by police officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These problems go beyond obvious physical dangers posed by associating with criminals. Numerous scholars have noted that criminal justice system pay heavy personal toll as well (Bartol, 1993; Territo and Vetter, 1981; Violanti, 1992). Thus, it should not be surprising that high rate of alcohol and drug abuse has been documented among criminal justice agency personnel (Dunham, Lewis, and Alpert, 1988). The response to latter problem advocated by an increasing number of public administrators has been development and implementation of mandatory urine drug testing programs (Boodt, 1989). Drug testing proponents argue that these programs are an effective way to ensure integrity and fitness of criminal justice agency personnel.(1) Opponents of mandatory drug testing contend that urine testing infringes on employees' constitutional rights.(2) As with many contentious social issues, courts have been asked to settle this debate. In 1989, United States Supreme Court decided Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association and National Treasury Workers v. Von Raab. In wake of these cases, numerous research articles were published discussing legal status of mandatory drug testing (Boodt, 1989; Note, 1989). More recently, this topic has received less attention in The academic and professional literature. Since Skinner and Von Raab were decided, number of cases have clarified this area of law. This article considers several of these important precedents and present legal status of urinanalysis in American law enforcement and corrections agencies.(3) PRESIDENT REAGAN'S WAR ON DRUGS In 1987, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12,564 requiring most federal agencies to develop and implement mandatory employee Drug testing programs (3 C.F.R., 22A, 1987). As result of President's directive, Federal Railroad Association (FRA) developed regulations that mandated blood and urine tests of who were involved in certain train accidents. In addition, FRA adopted regulations that authorized railroads to administer breath and urine tests to violating certain safety rules. In 1989, railroad challenged constitutionality of these regulations. The asserted that mandatory urine testing without particularized suspicion or probable cause to believe that certain had ingested drugs or alcohol violated Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal searches and seizures. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for seven member majority in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association (1989) holding that urinanalysis drug testing is regulated by Fourth Amendment because the collection of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable (617). However, because Fourth Amendment only forbids those searches and seizures that are unreasonable, constitutionality of a particular practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on individual's Fourth Amendments interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests (619). Under this balancing test, contested regulations did not violate railroad employees' Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held that covered employees' expectations of privacy were diminished by reason of their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety, goal dependent, in substantial part, on health and fitness of [such] employees (627). Moreover, government interest in testing these without show of individualized suspicion was compelling because even momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences (628). …