Drug Testing is a Violation of the Fourth Amendment Essay

Many years ago, the United States Constitution was created as a guideline for the newly formed government to run this country as well as secure protection rights of all citizens. Since then, there have been many incidents that question the violation of citizens’ rights under the Constitution, such as the violation of the fourth amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures especially in the school system and on college campuses. The fourth amendment states, “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” (O’Brien, 2014). As this pertains to those citizens who are students, whether it be in the primary, secondary, or post-secondary setting, the question that unveils itself is whether or not students are entitled to their constitutional rights, in this case, the fourth amendment’s rights, while in the school environment.

The performance of random drug testing has seen its fair share of scrutiny in terms of cost, test result reliability, and constitutionality. Drug testing has been fraught with controversy for decades by both employers and employees alike and there are three valid reasons as to why the testing is not ideal. One of the main elements that is a cause for concern is an employee’s invasion of privacy. When an employee tests positive, there is a strong possibility and fear that they will be permanently stigmatized. Any explanation given to the employer, whether it’s voluntary or forced on contingency of employment, violates their HIPAA Rights. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, has referred to the practice as a "needless indignity" (DeCew, 1994).

How many people have had an interview for a job, received a call that they were hired, and then heard their future employer say that they will have to do a drug test before they can start this new job? “Although many people think that illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other street drugs became a problem for youth in the 1960’s the truth of the matter is that there has always been a drug problem in the United States when it comes to substance abuse”(testcountry.org). This past summer I had an interview at Russel Stover Candies, when they called to tell me that the position was mine, they then informed me that I would have to pass a drug test before I could officially have the job. Although some jobs and people believe that drug testing in the workplace should take place, many people do not believe in drug testing. Opponents of WDT (Workplace drug testing) argue that the process of drug testing amounts to an unwarranted invasion of a person’s private life and their body. Some people believe that the statement “free consent” is impossible to obtain. Drug testing did not come into play in the United States until the late 1980’s as a part of the Reagan administration. Before that, there was no standard way for jobs, schools, and even sports to drug test employees, students, or athletes. People that had jobs working with heavy machinery or people that worked in the Department of Transportation were mainly the ones getting drug tested. The issues with drug

Once someone reaches a level of reasonable suspicion, police officers are allowed to stop and frisk the suspects. If they are still thought to be participating in illegal activity it becomes probable cause and then the suspect will be arrested and interrogated. Due to Miranda rights people have the opportunity to speak with an attorney before being questioned and may also have one present while being questioned.

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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

The Fourth Amendment protects the individual from unreasonable police intrusion. The amendment is intended to guarantee all individuals in America, whether they’re here legally or illegally, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person and the places in which they have a reasonable privacy

Explain your answer. This was a legal arrest because she had probable suspicion. She saw with her own eyes suspicious activity that is generally done when dealing drugs.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon initiated the national War on Drugs, which focused on the passage of policies geared toward fighting illegal substances (Amundson, Zajicek, and Hunt, 2014). During this time, Nixon allocated two-thirds of federal dollars for treatment of drug addiction and prevention of new users and one-third of federal dollars for interdiction and enforcement (Amundson et al., 2014). After Nixon’s initial War on Drugs program, policies and programs began to shift. Under the Regan Administration, the War on Drugs became more punitive and there was a reversal of federal dollars. Under the new and subsequent regimes, two-thirds of money was spent on interdiction and enforcement and one-third was spent on treatment and prevention (Amundson et al., 2014). Under this new Administration came tougher sentencing, an increase in prison spending, and mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses (Amundson et al.,

They declined the formulation of the issues because the correct solution of the Fourth Amendment problem is not necessarily promoted by incantation of the phrase “constitutionally protected area” (Hall, 2016.) Secondly, The Fourth Amendment protects individuals privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further and often have nothing to do with privacy at all (Hall,

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from illegal search and seizures. Most search and seizures that are made without a warrant are unconstitutional and invalid; however, there are many exceptions to an amendment. According to Lawyers.com “there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement that permit warrantless searches, such as the automobile exception and a search incident to lawful arrest” (Unlawful Vehicle Search & Seizures, 2017). Officer Taylor thought a minor traffic violation occurred, therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop. In the case of Whren v. the United States, the case concluded that, “the existence of probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred establishes the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops regardless of the actual motivation of the officers involved” (U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment, 2017). Based on the Whren v. the United States case, the factor that the taillight ended up being operational doesn’t conclude the stop unjust because the officer thought the light was broken.

Slowly pushing students to become addicts, drug testing high school student athletes may or may not be to blame. In Facts & Statistics on Random Drug Testing of High School Students, Dr. M.H. Davis stated, “In the early 1990s, many school districts began to look into drug testing as a way to curb student drug use, which led to two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving student privacy. The court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing student athletes in 1995, and in 2002, the court expanded high school drug testing policies to include all students who participate in a competitive extracurricular activity. In those rulings, the court stated deterring student drug use was more important than privacy” (Davis). Drug testing high school athletes

     There are different testing categories, and each comes under its own legal questioning. The first and by far the most common type of drug testing is pre-employment testing. This usually takes place when a company has decided to hire an employee, but makes that prospective employee pass a drug test before any sort of employment agreement is settled. Second, there is random drug testing that can involve two different policies. The first, simply being that random employees names are picked to undergo the testing. The second requiring all employees to take a drug test on a random day that can either be pre-announced or not. For example, my high school conducted drug testing on random students and on random days in a month. The third type of testing allows employers to test when they have reasonable suspicion to believe

This would conclude that drug testing programs did not meet these expectations. This paper will support the idea that drug testing in the work place does not increase productivity, and that it costs more money than it saves for those businesses.

However from the point of view of a teacher, parent or whoever is for the testing, it is done to protect the students. Many children or young adults that experiment with drugs do not understand what the drugs can do to their minds and bodies. With the testing schools will be able to determine which students need help and can better focus on treatment, and helping the student to understand the consequences of their actions not necessarily disciplinary but on the issue of health. As far as helping the students goes it is much easier to teach the students about drugs when it is known which students are doing them or have tried them. Time will not have to be wasted by explaining, "why drugs should not be taken" to a student that is taking them wile they could focus on treatment to deter the student from taking them.

For my final paper I have decided to choose the topic on the very controversial issue of drug testing for current and prospective employees in the workplace. In the textbook we reviewed the opposing opinions of authors Joseph Desjardins and his co-author Ronald Duska and Michael Cranford. The main issue between these writers is whether drug testing invades an individual’s privacy and in what circumstances should drug testing be permissible. I will first review both Desjardins and Cranford’s views on the issue then offer my evaluation.