According to the provision of the Fourth Amendment the U.S Supreme Constitution prohibits government from unreasonable search and seizure, which restricts the authority of public employers from taking urine samples of employees for drug testing. In my opinion, the public employer should not be able to conduct unreasonable or random drug screening of their employees and it should be balanced with the provisions of the fourth amendment, where drug testing must be based on special governmental needs and balanced against individual privacy rights to avoid a fourth amendment violation. There should be a focus on striking a balance between the competing logic of individual rights, agency needs and public trust. Employers have the right to expect …show more content…
Furthermore, there are also chances of human human error in the lab, or the failure of the lab to distinguish between legal and illegal substance which can add up to a small margin of error leading to a huge potential for false positive results. Employee Productivity and alertness are seen as prerequisites for any job but random drug testing doesn’t necessary guarantee safety against substance abuse and makes the employees vulnerable in their work environment and serves more as a deterrent and a constant fear among the employees of losing their jobs leading to errors at work.The drug testing at work place not only makes us question the provisions of the fourth amendment but also contravene the Human Rights Act and raises serious questions about the erosion of civil liberties in the workplace. In some industries like rail, aviation etc. Drug and alcohol testing …show more content…
There must be a valid reason to suspect that anemployee has been using drugs or a concern that the public would be endangered if the individuals behavior or judgement was affected by drugs. During the 1989 Supreme Court ruling on Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, The U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for random drug testing of public employees in "safety sensitive" positions. it was established that the constitutional protection could be set aside if significant safety and security concerns were at stake .During the same 1989 session, the court provided for another circumstances in which testing could be required in the National Treasury Emplyees Union v. William Von Raab where the union objescted to the custom Service program of requiring drug testing for employees who were involved indrug interdiction, who carried firearms, or who had access to classied
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
...g went to the fact that even though the business did not purposely discriminate, it did in fact due to a policy that is discriminatory in nature. In other words, the true reason for the firing was directly related to substance abuse. Although the employee was technically not let go due to the abuse specifically, the fact that this occurred in fact is enough to render the policy unfair. I feel that this law provides great value to my workplace as, it protects those who have made mistakes at the workplace due to a disability. In this case it was substance abuse, but the same concept could be applied to other conditions that alter behavior.
Prescription and pharmaceutical drug abuse is beginning to expand as a social issue within the United States because of the variety of drugs, their growing availability, and the social acceptance and peer pressure to uses them. Many in the workforce are suffering and failing at getting better due to the desperation driving their addiction.
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"States Consider Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients." FoxNews.com - Breaking News | Latest News | Current News. 26 March 2009. Web. 31 January 2011
There is an ongoing debate over whether or not Welfare recipients should be drug tested to receive the benefits. The lines of reasoning from both sides of this argument have unambiguous points. Those who oppose the idea of drug testing say that it is unconstitutional, and violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they claim that this law stereotypes and discriminates against the poor
Every enterprise could be a victim no matter how big or small they are. Every little insignificant penny that a company loses because of their employees usually comes from the owner’s pocket. Having a guard up for the potential crimes and those employees who are most likely to commit an offense is the main step to fulfill the prevention technique. Careful hiring of employees and internal business rules help raising workplace
...lis Smith wrote a book called “Privacy: How to Protect What’s Left of it”, it expresses the fact that there are no legal actions in the process to express the care for a worker’s privacy equality in the working force. Smith feels as though it is periodically swept under the carpet, and those in charge of this issue of privacy think it does not outweigh other society problems, so it is overlooked. Thus, being the most complex yet controversial topics employees’ rights to privacy have been under the microscope for many years, and years to come.
These results could be inaccurate and be caused by other issues such as the imperfectness of the
However, this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively, especially when the work may be physical, it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract.
The benefits of taking drug tests. It prevents serious accidents from drug users and the environments to