Home » Take Action » Become a Student Activist » Case of the Month Archives » May 2000
Frequently Asked Questions in the Baron Drug Testing Case
If Thomas Baron was not using drugs and had nothing to hide, then why did he object to drug testing?
Baron, like most citizens, values his right to be left alone. He objected to taking a drug test as a matter of principle. Both the actual taking of urine samples and the analysis of the sample, which may disclose private information, violate his right to privacy. As an employee of the City of Hollywood, a local government entity, he is afforded certain privacy and due process protections as outlined in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Although the city's policy does not require that new applicants stand in front of a television monitor (a condition that surprisingly enough has been upheld by the courts in the past), the City of Hollywood's drug screening procedure is more invasive than others in that it requires prospective applicants to go to a specific hospital rather than to a doctor of their choice. The process of stripping and urinating in a cup -- both offensive and degrading -- constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the drug testing policy in question was considered unreasonable since the city failed to show a correlation between the duties of accountants and the necessity for drug testing all prospective city employees.
Isn't drug testing the best way to run a safe and productive workplace by catching drug users?
Perhaps, but it also is the most un-American way. Americans have traditionally believed that general searches of innocent people are unfair. This tradition began in colonial times, when King George's soldiers searched everyone indiscriminately in order to uncover those few people who were committing offenses against the Crown. Early Americans deeply hated these general searches.
After the Revolution, when memories of the experience with warrantless searches were still fresh, the Fourth Amendment was adopted. It says that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense. Before a personal search can take place, the government must have good reason to suspect the person is concealing something illegal. The same rights to privacy are extended to public sector employees as well.
In addition, there is some debate as to the overall reliability of drug screens used by most companies. Opponents of drug testing claim commonly used drugs yield false positive results anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of the time by oftentimes confusing similar chemical compounds found in codeine and Vicks Formula 44-M, for example, with heroin. However, supporters of employee drug testing believe that urinalysis results are directly related to future job performance. By implementing costly early detection programs, many employers believe they will ultimately improve overall productivity by weeding out drug users before they end up having a detrimental impact on many aspects of employment. (There have been numerous reports that drug testing programs have led to reductions in the rate of workplace accidents.) Nonetheless, several organizations, including the U.S. Post Office, have attempted to measure the relationship between drug testing and job performance by testing all applicants, hiring even those who failed, and then evaluating their job performance some time later. These studies, published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, show that there is little, if any, relationship between drug test results and future job performance.
Can students be tested for drugs?
Yes. In a 1995 Supreme Court case called Vernonia v. Acton, justices ruled that student athletes in public schools can be tested because athletic programs are voluntary and student athletes are role models. But because there are critical issues where the law is not clear, either because the issue has not been sufficiently litigated or because Vernonia in many ways contradicts established case law, the legal battles continue.
In an effort to protect athletes from unreasonable searches, the ACLU of Michigan recently filed suit on behalf of 18-year-old Grand Blanc High School wrestler Micah White, who is challenging a policy that requires drug testing of student athletes. The eligibility requirements to participate in the school's wrestling program required that he and his parents sign a consent form authorizing school officials to conduct random breathalyzer and drug tests. Unlike other states throughout the country, Michigan's Constitution offers greater protections against unreasonable searches than under the federal constitution.
Can a public school teacher make a student submit to a drug test if he or she thinks the students is using drugs?
Yes and no. A drug and alcohol test is a search, but whether the officials in your school have to have "reasonable suspicion" that you're a user before they can make you take a test depends on what state you live in. As stated above, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in the State of Michigan, for example, is greater under the Michigan Constitution that under the federal constitution. Lawyers in the Michigan case, White v. Grand Blanc Schools, are relying on those heightened protections to challenge that drug testing policy.
Do I have a right to privacy when I'm in school?
Yes and no. Since public schools are run by the government, they must obey the Constitution. However, you do have fewer privacy rights in school than outside of school.
