National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab

489 U.S. 656 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, a bureau of the Department: of the Treasury, is the federal agency responsible for processing persons, carriers, cargo, and mail into the United States, collecting revenue from imports, and enforcing customs and related laws. They are responsible in part for the interdiction and seizure of contraband, including illegal drugs. Many of D's employees have direct contact with those who traffic drugs for profit. Drug import operations, often directed by sophisticated criminal syndicates, may be affected by violence or its threat. As a necessary response, many Customs operatives carry and use firearms in connection with their official duties. D established drug screening through urinalysis. Drug tests were made a condition of placement or employment for positions that meet one or more of three criteria: (1) direct involvement in drug interdiction or enforcement of related laws, (2) an agent who carries firearms, and (3) agents who handle 'classified' material. To ensure against adulteration of the specimen or substitution of a sample from another person, a monitor of the same sex as the employee remains close at hand to listen for the normal sounds of urination. Dye is added to the toilet water to prevent the employee from using the water to adulterate the sample. The sample is tested for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine. Employees who test positive for drugs and who can offer no satisfactory explanation are subject to dismissal. Test results may not be turned over to any other agency, including criminal prosecutors, without the employee's written consent. P commenced this suit claiming the drug-testing program violated, the Fourth Amendment. The District Court agreed. It held that 'the drug testing plan constitutes an overly intrusive policy of searches and seizures without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, in violation of legitimate expectations of privacy.' The court enjoined the drug-testing program. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals vacated the injunction. It agreed that the program resulted in a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that D has a strong interest in detecting drug use among employees who meet the criteria of the program. It reasoned that drug use by covered employees casts substantial doubt on their ability to discharge their duties honestly and vigorously, undermining public confidence in the integrity of D and concomitantly impairing D's efforts to enforce the drug laws. The court held that 'the exaction of consent as a condition of assignment to the new job is not unreasonable.' P appealed.