School Bus Transportation News at STN Media

Court Strikes Down Drug Testing
of Non-Driving Mechanics

By Peggy Burns, Esq.

There is no question about the legality of requiring school bus drivers to submit to drug tests. But can a school district require a non-driving mechanic to undergo drug tests even where there is no reason to believe that person has been using drugs? A recent federal Court of Appeals case says it may depend upon the way the testing program is set up.

Mechanics working for the City of Albuquerque, N.M. are primarily responsible for repair of the city's fleet of large diesel trash trucks. They are not authorized to drive city vehicles on the streets or highways. Nevertheless, beginning in 1992, they were required to undergo a substance abuse test. The mechanics brought a lawsuit in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (19 Solid Waste Mechanics v. City of Albuquerque, Dock 96-2177, 9/2/98) claiming that this policy violated the mechanics' right to be free from unreasonable searches as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The court agreed that when a government employer requires its employees to submit to a urinalysis test for the purpose of detecting illegal drug use, the test is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. To be legal, the search must be reasonable. Ordinarily, a search must be based on suspicion that a particular person is using drugs. Sometimes, it is determined that the government has such an important reason for requiring the drug test even without that individualized suspicion that it actually outweighs the individual's right to privacy. In such a case, the testing program is found to be reasonable.

In the Solid Waste Mechanics case, the 10th Circuit Court followed the U.S. Supreme Court's lead in requiring that a governmental entity must first make a showing that there is a "special need" to test an employee for drugs absent suspicion that the individual employee is using drugs. If such a need does exist, the court will go on to balance the government's interests against the individual's privacy interest. If it does not, the matter is closed, and the test will be found to be unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutional.

Special Needs

There are two main steps in showing "special need." First, the testing program must be adopted in response to a documented drug abuse problem, or be necessary because drug abuse among the target group would pose a serious danger to the public. Second, the testing scheme must meet the goals of detection and deterrence.

Drug Use

The court found that if the City of Albuquerque mechanics used drugs it would pose a serious concern for workplace and public safety. But the city failed the second part of the test. The Albuquerque drug tests occurred in predictable intervals (when a mechanic obtains or renews a CDL) and the tests were limited in frequency (every four years). Under those circumstances, the city failed to show that its testing program was well designed to detect drug use among its employees, or have any deterrent effect. Since the safety of school children is clearly an issue in the work done by bus mechanics, a program which involves testing as less predictable and more frequent intervals than that in Albuquerque would probably meet the "special need" test.