Recent judicial decisions related to urinalysis are examined with respect to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections.
The discussion notes the increasing practice of routine urine testing, for both employee drug testing and the testing of people in drug treatment, on probation or parole, or currently imprisoned. Urine tests reveal only metabolites remaining from past drug use and have limited significance as an indication of recent drug intoxication. The individual tested, the drug, and the test used all affect the length of time after use that yields a positive result. False positives and false negatives, especially through cross- reactions, are common. Inaccurate results can also stem from human area. In most cases, courts have ruled that urine testing involves a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, courts have generally held that individualized reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause is necessary to conduct a search. Exceptions also exist to the requirement of individualized suspicion. Judicial decisions have focused on convicted criminals, members of the military, pervasively regulated industries, routine physical examinations, safety-sensitive employment, students, the testing of job applicants, and noncriminal investigations or procedures. Although case law demonstrates that mass searches will not become common, urine testing in some form will probably remain a feature of public employment and the criminal justice system.