National Litigation Hotline

After examining the “special needs” proffered by the state and deeming them “sufficiently vital to overcome the traditional requirements of individual suspicion,” the Sixth Circuit went on to hold that these needs were also adequate to outweigh the cited employees' reasonable expectations in the context of their employment. The court began by making a context-specific inquiry into the “special needs” the State put forth to uphold its random drug testing policy. With regard to the parole or probation officers and field service assistants, the court found that their supervisory and law enforcement duties might jeopardize public safety should they perform these roles while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The court also recognized that non-custodial employees working within correctional facilities have the kind of access to prisoners that would prove dangerous should they themselves be suffering from alcohol or drug-induced impaired judgment, or should these controlled and illegal substances somehow make their way into the prisoners' hands. Similarly, the court found the contact health care employees provide to prisoners would be detrimentally affected by their own alcohol and drug consumption and would likewise suffer should these employees introduce these substances into the prison environment. Finally, with regard to health care providers at state hospitals, the court recognized the temptation that total access to controlled substances would inspire in drug-dependent employees and the aforementioned risks to patient health that result from the provision of medical services by impaired or intoxicated technicians.

The Sixth Circuit went on to weigh these sufficiently vital “special needs” against the employees' reasonable expectations of privacy. Noting that the employees subject to the random testing were those working in law enforcement, health care, or inside a prison, fields presumed “highly regulated” due to the nature of the activities involved, the court found that these state officers have a “diminished expectation of privacy.” Furthermore, the court did not consider the random and continuous nature of the testing program to be highly intrusive in that the random aspect cut down significantly on the frequency of the tests, and because whatever intrusiveness was imposed on employees would be offset by the effectiveness of the tests at achieving their deterrence and prevention goals. Therefore, because the court ultimately found employees' diminished expectations of privacy to be outweighed by the State's “special needs,” it affirmed the district court's holding that the random testing program does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

State Employees' Fourth Amendment Rights Trumped by Sufficient 'Special Needs'

The Sixth Circuit has held that the random drug testing of certain state employees does not violate their Fourth Amendment rights if the state is able to establish sufficient “special needs” that outweigh the employees' reasonable expectations of privacy. International Union v. Winters, 2004 WL 2186058 (Sept. 30, 2004).

In May 1999, the Michigan Civil Service Commission (the Commission) adopted a random drug and alcohol testing program, which was incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement (the CBA) between the UAW, a union representing about 20,000 State of Michigan employees, and the State of Michigan. The CBA identified certain state employees who would be subject to random testing, including probation or parole officers and field service assistants, non-custodial employees who work for the Department of Corrections or the Department of Community Health within the state's correctional facilities, Department of Corrections and Department of Community Health employees who provide health care and psychological care to prisoners, and Department of Community Health, Department of Education, and Department of Military and Veterans Affairs employees who provide health care and other services to residents at state hospitals for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled and to residents of veterans' homes. The UAW appealed to the Sixth Circuit after the district court entered judgment for the State as to the reasonableness of these Fourth Amendment searches.

After examining the “special needs” proffered by the state and deeming them “sufficiently vital to overcome the traditional requirements of individual suspicion,” the Sixth Circuit went on to hold that these needs were also adequate to outweigh the cited employees' reasonable expectations in the context of their employment. The court began by making a context-specific inquiry into the “special needs” the State put forth to uphold its random drug testing policy. With regard to the parole or probation officers and field service assistants, the court found that their supervisory and law enforcement duties might jeopardize public safety should they perform these roles while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The court also recognized that non-custodial employees working within correctional facilities have the kind of access to prisoners that would prove dangerous should they themselves be suffering from alcohol or drug-induced impaired judgment, or should these controlled and illegal substances somehow make their way into the prisoners' hands. Similarly, the court found the contact health care employees provide to prisoners would be detrimentally affected by their own alcohol and drug consumption and would likewise suffer should these employees introduce these substances into the prison environment. Finally, with regard to health care providers at state hospitals, the court recognized the temptation that total access to controlled substances would inspire in drug-dependent employees and the aforementioned risks to patient health that result from the provision of medical services by impaired or intoxicated technicians.

The Sixth Circuit went on to weigh these sufficiently vital “special needs” against the employees' reasonable expectations of privacy. Noting that the employees subject to the random testing were those working in law enforcement, health care, or inside a prison, fields presumed “highly regulated” due to the nature of the activities involved, the court found that these state officers have a “diminished expectation of privacy.” Furthermore, the court did not consider the random and continuous nature of the testing program to be highly intrusive in that the random aspect cut down significantly on the frequency of the tests, and because whatever intrusiveness was imposed on employees would be offset by the effectiveness of the tests at achieving their deterrence and prevention goals. Therefore, because the court ultimately found employees' diminished expectations of privacy to be outweighed by the State's “special needs,” it affirmed the district court's holding that the random testing program does not violate the Fourth Amendment.