Opinion ID: 739738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the drug test

Text: 52 As an initial matter, we note that our circuit has not published any opinions regarding compelled urinalysis in the prison setting. This fact alone is significant evidence that the Officials are entitled to qualified immunity--there does not exist any law of our circuit for the Officials to have violated. Looking at the law of other circuits, as well as our cases related to urinalysis testing outside the prison setting, we conclude that Thompson's drug test did not violate any constitutional right, let alone a clearly established right. 53 The Supreme Court has declared that compelled urinalysis constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 617, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1413, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (stating that urinalyses must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment). As a result, to avoid the proscription of the Fourth Amendment, urinalyses must be conducted in a reasonable manner. Id. at 618, 109 S.Ct. at 1413-14. However, prison administrators are accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security. Bell, 441 U.S. at 547, 99 S.Ct. at 1878. 54 As stated earlier in this opinion, the Supreme Court has not decided whether prison inmates retain cognizable rights of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Assuming arguendo that they do possess such rights, we analyze the reasonableness of the instant drug test to determine if the drug test was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Reasonableness in the context of prison administration requires [b]alancing the significant and legitimate security interests of the institution against the privacy interests of the inmates. Id. at 560, 99 S.Ct. at 1885. At least two circuits have adopted the Bell balancing test in response to prison inmates' challenges to random urinalysis and have concluded that, upon a determination that the procedures for selecting the inmates to be tested are truly random, such testing is not unreasonable. See, e.g., Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1986); Forbes v. Trigg, 976 F.2d 308, 315 (7th Cir.1992); see also Storms v. Coughlin, 600 F.Supp. 1214, 1223 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (procedure for selecting inmates for testing not truly random and thus unreasonable where prison official selected cards representing inmates off a bulletin board). The requirement of random tests stems from a concern that correctional officials could harass particular inmates by subjecting them to repeated drug tests. See Forbes, 976 F.2d at 315. 55 Applying the balancing factors discussed in Bell, in light of the test articulated in Turner, we conclude that Thompson's urinalysis was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
56 It is undisputed that Thompson's drug test was not random. Inmates were preselected by the Officials to have their cells searched based on previous drug violations. We therefore must decide whether a non-random urinalysis test can be reasonable. Significantly, out of the 129 inmates whose cells were searched, 124 were required to submit to urinalyses (it is unclear from the record why five inmates did not give a urinalysis). At least one court has recognized that where large numbers of inmates are required to give urinalyses, the danger of prison officials harassing particular prisoners is illusory. Forbes, 976 F.2d at 315 (We refuse to accept the supposition that a urine test of all inmates [from a particular building] conducted at the same time, under the same conditions, could constitute harassment of one of the inmates.). Here, although the testing selection procedure did allow the Officials to choose which CMC prisoners they would test, the agreed facts are devoid of any suggestion of inappropriate harassment. 57 Thompson also notes that at the time Official Jordan ordered inmates to submit samples, he believed that the inmates to be tested for drugs and alcohol had been selected by using K-9 Unit dogs to give alerts. Jordan subsequently learned during the course of litigation in the instant case that the dogs were only used to alert prison staff to search specific cells. Prison Security staff determined which inmates were to be drug tested. This circumstance, however, is of no moment, because the facts show that the urinalysis was intended for no other purpose than to detect illicit drugs. 58 We conclude that where prison officials select a large number of inmates for testing based upon legitimate criteria, the danger discussed in Storms and other cases--that correctional officials could harass particular inmates by subjecting them to repeated tests--is wholly illusory. We refuse to accept the proposition that a urine test of so many inmates (in this case, 124) conducted at the same time, under the same conditions, could constitute harassment of one of the inmates. See Forbes, 976 F.2d at 315.
59 There is no question that use of narcotics is a problem that plagues virtually every penal and detention center in the country. Spence, 807 F.2d at 755. Thompson's main argument is that, although the Officials may have had legitimate reasons to give his cellmate a drug test, there was no reason to require him to submit to a urinalysis. Thus, he contends, his drug test was not justified. In support, Thompson points to the search plan and alleges that it recognized that an occupant of a double-man cell who was not suspected, would not be subjected to urinalysis unless the cell received a dog alert for the scent of drugs. On the next page, however, the plan states that [a]ll inmates removed from their cell will be ordered to submit a urine sample prior to being re-housed back in their assigned cells. This statement supports the proposition that the drug test was not intended to harass Thompson, but rather the test was an attempt to curb the use and flow of drugs among persons in a volatile environment peculiarly susceptible to drugs. American Fed. of Gov't Employees, AFL-CIO v. Roberts, 9 F.3d 1464, 1468 (9th Cir.1993) (upholding random drug testing of prison guards). The fact that sixteen inmates tested positive for narcotics use--testing positive even though they were confined in a place designed to prevent them from breaking the law--emphasizes the importance and justification for such tests.
60 The drug test was given in a bathroom, where Thompson and Official Jordan were the only people present. The floor was damp and Thompson did not have shoes. Jordan stood within eight inches of Thompson's side and continuously watched Thompson urinate into a small plastic bottle. Thompson contends this procedure was unnecessarily humiliating. However, there were no members of the opposite sex viewing his urination, and no other inmates could see him. Cf. Storms, 600 F.Supp. at 1222 (unreasonable to collect urine from male inmates in location where female nurses and others can watch procedure). The presence of the guard was reasonable to safeguard the integrity of the test and to maintain control over the prisoner. Therefore, the location of his drug test was not unreasonable. 61 In sum, Thompson's urinalysis was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. A balance of his alleged privacy expectations against the Officials' security interests weighs in favor of the Officials in their attempt to curb the use and flow of drugs among persons in a volatile environment peculiarly susceptible to drugs. Roberts, 9 F.3d at 1468. The urinalysis did not violate Thompson's alleged Fourth Amendment rights. 5