PATCHOGUE-MEDFORD CONGRESS OF TEACHERS v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PATCHOGUE-MEDFORD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 70 N.Y.2d 57, 510 N.E.2d 325, 517 N.Y.S.2d 456
Decided June 9, 1987
In 1985 the Patchogue-Medford School District notified teachers eligible for tenure that they would be required to produce a urine sample to determine whether any of them were using drugs illegally. The sample would be collected by the school nurse and sent to a laboratory for testing. Any teacher who refused to provide the urine sample would not be recommended for tenure. There was no evidence of a drug problem among the teaching staff, tenured or not tenured.
The teachers’ union brought a lawsuit to prohibit the drug testing plan claiming that it would violate teachers’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The New York State Court of Appeals considered the challenge under both the New York State and the United States Constitutions’ provisions prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. They decided unanimously that the plan was unconstitutional.
The first issue considered was whether the urine test involved a search and seizure under the state and federal Constitutions. The question asked was whether it infringed on “an expectation of privacy which society considers reasonable.” The school district urged the view that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s urine since it is a waste product and it can be obtained without invading the person’s body. In these ways urine was unlike blood to which one has a reasonable expectation of privacy according to previous Supreme Court cases. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the school district. Simply because urine is a waste product, it “is not generally eliminated in public or in such a way that the public or government officials can gain access to it in order to ‘read’ its contents.” In addition, the act of discharging urine is a private, intimate act. Furthermore, urine itself contains information that reveals private information. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the act of requiring the teachers to submit to a urinalysis would constitute a search under both the federal and state Constitutions.
The next issue for the Court was whether the search was reasonable since the state and federal Constitutions only prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court's decision explained that "reasonableness" generally requires that government has probable cause and obtain a warrant before a search and seizure. But in certain circumstances less than probable cause and no warrant are acceptable. In schools, reasonable suspicion is the appropriate standard when searches by school officials of students are involved. (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325) Similarly, the Court decided, reasonable suspicion is the appropriate standard when school authorities have reason to suspect teachers of drug abuse.
However, in this case the school district never claimed to have reasonable suspicion to believe that non-tenured teachers were abusing drugs. In this case, the Court must balance the reason for the search (a.k.a. the “government interest”) against the extent to which it "intrudes on legitimate privacy interests" to determine whether the government's action is reasonable. The school district urged the Court to treat this search as it treats police checkpoints to identify drunk drivers, which are constitutional despite the lack of reasonable suspicion. The Court rejected this analogy because at police sobriety checkpoints officers are permitted merely to stop and inquire to see if there is cause to believe drivers are intoxicated. They are not permitted to administer roadside urinalysis. The Patchogue policy required urinalysis of all teachers There was a greater intrusion on individual privacy and dignity not justified by the government interest. Therefore, the urinalysis search was unconstitutional.
Justice Richard Simons agreed with the Court’s decision but wrote a separate, concurring opinion in order to clarify his belief that the decision should be based on the United States rather than the New York State Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Learning Activities
Terms to Know
· concurring opinion
· Government interest
· probable cause
· reasonable suspicion
· unreasonable search and seizure
Compare and Contrast
In Vernonia v. Acton (115 S. Ct. 2386 (1995), the school’s drug testing policy only applied to student athletes and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. The Supreme Court said the following regarding these students’ expectation of privacy:
“For their own good and that of their classmates, [all] public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and to be vaccinated against various diseases…. Legitimate privacy expectations are even less with regard to student athletes. School sports are not for the bashful. They require “suiting up” before each practice or event, and showering and changing afterwards. Public school locker rooms, the usual sites for these activities, are not notable for the privacy they afford….There is an additional respect in which school athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy. By choosing to “go out for the team,” they voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students generally.”
1. Under this reasoning, if the Vernonia school district sought to drug test all students, rather than just athletes, would there be a different view of the privacy expectation at stake?
2. Use the above reasoning in Vernonia to evaluate the non-tenured teachers’ expectation of privacy in Patchogue.
3. Use the reasoning in Patchogue regarding the teachers’ expectation of privacy and apply it to the student athletes in Vernonia. .
Critical Thinking
Would the decision in Patchogue have been different if there was a reported problem of drug abuse among the teaching faculty?