I’ve been having a (ahem) “discussion” with some people concerning random drug tests in the workplace. They claim it is a violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution, that it constitutes illegal search and seizure. I disagree, basically because it has never been ruled illegal by any court that I’ve been able to find. Of course, when I ask for rulings proving their side, they can’t provide any. They just claim that the tests don’t work anyway. Naturally, because I disagree with them, I “hate” the Constitution and I’m only interested in destroying it. :rolleyes:
I suspect this’ll end up in GD space. But at least in Minnesota, random drug testing is illegal except for a small class of safety-sensitive employees:
(that same article agrees with your co-workers by the way: “While the U.S. Supreme Court has noted that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits random or suspicionless searches, including drug tests, it also permits such searches if circumstances present “special needs.””)
So, with cites given, my general feeling on the issue is that this is clearly out of bounds on an ethical level, regardless of the law (again, with the exception of safety-related positions.) I could be taking drugs (I don’t), and certainly if my performance is suffering from that or any other reason you’re entitled to fire me. But randomly searching is crossing the line. Consider that I could be embezzling from the company, too (a much more serious offense in the eyes of most employers and the law), but no one would allow random audits of employee’s personal bank accounts.
Missed the window, but here’s a page http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing-2 that lists various states rules. Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island (?), Vermont, and Virginia all forbid random testing. Many others explicitly allow it.
The 4th Amendment can only be violated by the government, not a private company. This is known in constitutional circles as “the state action requirement.” Timewinder’s cites discuss random drug testing of public school teachers, who are government employees. If your employer is a private actor, you have no 4th Amendment claim, although you still might have non-constitutional claims.
You’re right, TimeWinder, those are largely about state governments, or state laws that apply to private employers. The 4th Amendment applies to state governments through the 14th. It doesn’t apply at all to private actors. If someone objects to a private search, they need to use some other legal foundation than the 4th Amendment, and it looks (from those cites) like some states do give such separate foundation.
But the OP’s co-workers are still wrong about the 4th Amendment, unless they all work for the government.
Good catch! It’s that “other” Virginia (WV) a couple down. Sorry about that. At least the West Virginians aren’t in a foreign country like the New Mexicans! :smack:
My ex was a Medical Technologist, supervisor of a large lab. She finally changed careers because of pressure from the directors to cut corners; one quote I recall was “We pay you to put out results, not to tell us we need to spend more money to calibrate equipment.” If you were in that position would you spend your budget calibrating equipment related to tests required by surgeons with patients on an operating table or on drug testing equipment? That lab’s solution was to only actually run 10% of the employment drug tests, giving the other 90% a “clean” report without actually running the test.
I recall reading an article in one of her trade journals about the certifying authority for medical labs sending out known samples to labs around the country to check their accuracy. None of the samples known to contain methedrine tested positive and some percentage (I don’t recall) did test positive although they were known to be clean.
Another point: David Sklansky wrote an article using Bayes Theorem to show that because of the false positive problem a person who tests positive for drugs is actually less likely to have used drugs than someone who tested negative. I can’t find a link to the article online; I think it was in one of his books. Perhaps one of our resident mathematicians would like to explore this a bit. The concept is mentioned in this article: Thomas Bayes, Barry Bonds and Steroids