Drug Testing Policy Summary
Facts
During the fall of 1988, staff members of a public hospital located in the city of Charleston by the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) became concerned by “an apparent increase in the use of cocaine by patients who were receiving prenatal treatment.” (Samaha, 2012, p. 252) In response to the increasing number, in April of 1989, MUSC instituted a drug testing policy. Women who came into MUSC that presented suspicion of drug use were subjected to the drug screenings. If the tests were positive, it was reported to police and the women were subsequently arrested. MUSC worked in conjunction with the Solicitor for Charleston in the prosecution of mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth.
Petitioners were …show more content…
The invasion of privacy in this case was far more substantial because there was an obvious misunderstanding regarding the purpose of the tests and the use of the results. In all of the previous cases the results involved a disqualification from eligibility of a benefit to include employment or the ability to participate in an activity, not the unauthorized dissemination of the actual test results.
In each of the prior cases, the critical difference lied in the nature of the special need. The special need was not one connected to the interest of law enforcement. In this case, the policy’s feature from the inception of such was the use of law enforcement to coerce patients into substance abuse treatment. The main objective of the search was to generate evidence for law enforcement officials.
Public employees, identical to other citizens, have the duty to provide law enforcement with evidence of criminal conduct they obtain during the routine treatment of a patient. When this evidence is taken for the specific purpose of incriminating the patient, in order for the search to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, the patients would have to have been fully informed about their constitutional rights, which they were
During the fall of 1988, staff members of a public hospital located in the city of Charleston by the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) became concerned by “an apparent increase in the use of cocaine by patients who were receiving prenatal treatment.” (Samaha, 2012, p. 252) In response to the increasing number, in April of 1989, MUSC instituted a drug testing policy. Women who came into MUSC that presented suspicion of drug use were subjected to the drug screenings. If the tests were positive, it was reported to police and the women were subsequently arrested. MUSC worked in conjunction with the Solicitor for Charleston in the prosecution of mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth.
Petitioners were …show more content…
The invasion of privacy in this case was far more substantial because there was an obvious misunderstanding regarding the purpose of the tests and the use of the results. In all of the previous cases the results involved a disqualification from eligibility of a benefit to include employment or the ability to participate in an activity, not the unauthorized dissemination of the actual test results.
In each of the prior cases, the critical difference lied in the nature of the special need. The special need was not one connected to the interest of law enforcement. In this case, the policy’s feature from the inception of such was the use of law enforcement to coerce patients into substance abuse treatment. The main objective of the search was to generate evidence for law enforcement officials.
Public employees, identical to other citizens, have the duty to provide law enforcement with evidence of criminal conduct they obtain during the routine treatment of a patient. When this evidence is taken for the specific purpose of incriminating the patient, in order for the search to be valid under the Fourth Amendment, the patients would have to have been fully informed about their constitutional rights, which they were