AFFIRMATIVE — WORKPLACE DRUG TESTING — SIGNIFICANCE 269

VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS A POLICY SUPPORTED BY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES, UNTOUCHED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMMENDMENT

Lewis, Andrea, SUMMER, 1990 , 56 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1013 , " COMMENT: DRUG TESTING: CAN PRIVACY INTERESTS BE PROTECTED UNDER THE "SPECIAL NEEDS" DOCTRINE? "//lxnx-Sj

Random drug testing, n122 the most controversial type of testing program, has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court. n123 The White House has staunchly advocated this type of testing, n124 and federal, state and local governments are promulgating drug testing schemes which include random testing procedures. n125 Yet random testing is critically different from the testing  [*1040]  procedures that were upheld by the Supreme Court in Skinner and National Treasury. When the relevant interests are balanced in the context of random testing, these differences should tip the scales in favor of individual privacy interests. Random drug testing should be found to violate the fourth amendment as an unreasonable search.

RANDOM DRUG TESTING VIOLATES THE 4^TH AMMENDMENT

Lewis, Andrea, SUMMER, 1990 , 56 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1013 , " COMMENT: DRUG TESTING: CAN PRIVACY INTERESTS BE PROTECTED UNDER THE "SPECIAL NEEDS" DOCTRINE? "//lxnx-Sj

  ... In 1986, President Reagan proposed widespread drug testing of government employees in response to a growing national concern about drug use. ... This Comment also argues that even under the reasoning of Skinner and National Treasury, many drug testing programs unreasonably intrude into individual privacy interests and violate the fourth amendment. ... The majority reasoned that the regulation of railway employees to ensure safety constitutes a "special need" and justifies testing for illicit drugs and alcohol. ... Justice Marshall, referring to the current concern about the drug problem, observed that "[h]istory teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency. . . ." He criticized the majority for trivializing the FRA's testing program and for taking the "longest step yet toward reading the probable-cause requirement out of the Fourth Amendment." ... The majority concluded, however, that the Customs Service's drug testing procedures were reasonable because the individual's diminished privacy interest was out-weighed by the government's interest in a drug-free Customs Service work force. ... Challengers of drug testing programs have focused their attacks on "random testing" and "reasonable suspicion" testing. ... Hence, the balance struck by the Supreme Court in Skinner and National Treasury should not be extended to random drug testing which is clearly an unconstitutional search within the meaning of the fourth amendment. ...