{
  "id": "RL34624",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL34624",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 346557,
      "date": "2008-08-19",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T03:13:14.317127",
      "title": "Governmental Drug Testing Programs: Legal and Constitutional Developments",
      "summary": "Constitutional law on the subject of governmentally mandated drug testing is primarily an outgrowth of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Judicial exceptions to traditional requirements of a warrant and individualized suspicion for \u201cadministrative\u201d searches have been extended to random drug testing of public employees and school students where the government is able to demonstrate a \u201cspecial need\u201d beyond the demands of ordinary law enforcement. In the public employment setting, however, special needs analysis has largely been confined to relatively narrow circumstances directly implicating \u201ccompelling\u201d public safety, law enforcement, or national security interests of the government. More generalized governmental concerns for the \u201cintegrity\u201d or efficient operation of the public workplace have usually not been deemed sufficient to justify interference with the \u201creasonable expectation of privacy\u201d of workers or other individuals to be tested. Additionally, warrantless, suspicionless drug testing programs that serve primarily a criminal law enforcement purpose are likely to be unconstitutional.\nThe constitutional parameters of \u201cspecial needs\u201d analysis is outlined in a series of Supreme Court rulings. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld post-accident drug and alcohol testing of railway employees after major train accidents or incidents, and it approved the testing of U.S. Customs employees seeking promotion to certain \u201csensitive\u201d jobs involving firearms use, drug interdiction duties, or access to classified information in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab. These decisions established that \u201ccompelling\u201d governmental interests in public safety or national security may, in appropriate circumstances, override constitutional objections to testing procedures by employees whose privacy expectations are diminished by the nature of their duties or workplace scrutiny to which they are otherwise subject. In Veronia School District v. Acton, the Supreme Court first approved of random drug testing procedures for high school student athletes, a holding that was subsequently extended, in Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, to permit random drug testing of students participating in non-athletic extracurricular activities. However, the Court placed limitations on the \u201cspecial needs\u201d doctrine when, in Chandler v. Miller, it voided a Georgia law requiring drug testing of candidates for state office for lack of a governmental need substantial enough to warrant suspicionless searches. Additionally, the Court generally has struck down drug testing policies that primarily serve criminal law enforcement purposes, such as in Ferguson v. City of Charleston.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL34624",
          "sha1": "8e4b37fdc52446ea12bd5a54d352f8094839554d",
          "filename": "files/20080819_RL34624_8e4b37fdc52446ea12bd5a54d352f8094839554d.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL34624",
          "sha1": "2b941c3e272953b5bff3a7aeff657d7205c8c4df",
          "filename": "files/20080819_RL34624_2b941c3e272953b5bff3a7aeff657d7205c8c4df.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}