Opinion ID: 2514279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: fire department:

Text: Fire Fighter/EMT; Fire Fighter/Paramedic: Positions respond to fire and medical emergencies, combat fire, administer medical care, and perform rescue operations. Fire Apparatus Engineers: Position responds to fire and medical emergencies, operate emergency vehicles, operate support apparatus (i.e. pumps, hoses, ladders), and perform maintenance on emergency equipment. Fire Captain; Senior Fire Captain; Paramedic Supervisor; Fire Battalion Chief: Positions conduct and supervise responses to emergency operations and may be required to perform fire fighter and paramedic functions in emergencies. Fire Investigators; Fire Inspectors: Positions conduct criminal investigations, inspect complex fire response systems and building construction for code violations. Fire Training Specialist: Position responsible for all areas of emergency training and serve as supplemental safety officers during major emergencies. Fire Dispatcher; Fire Lead Dispatcher: Positions receive and route emergency (911) calls. Fire Mechanics; Fire Lead Mechanics: Positions inspect and repair all response apparatus, respond to major emergencies to service and maintain the equipment during response operations. The positions of Fire Office Assistant, Fire Senior Office Assistan[t], and Fire Office Associate are not classified public safety positions. Plaintiffs have not challenged the designation of these jobs as public safety positions. Therefore, the court will assume as a factual matter that each of the designated public safety positions entails a substantially significant degree of responsibility for the safety of the public where the unsafe performance of an incumbent could result in death or injury to self or others. Policy § 5(t).
The policy sets out testing procedures at length and incorporates current federal Department of Transportation regulations. Policy § 6. Employees report to a collection site to provide a urine sample. The collection site personnel checks an employee's photo identification, and any personal belongings (outer garments, contents of pockets, purses, briefcases, etc.) that the employee wants to take into the testing restroom. The employee is asked to provide a urine sample in a private restroom. The employee is not observed while providing the sample. The collection site personnel then verifies the urine specimen's integrity by checking for sufficient volume, temperature, and the absence of unusual color or sediment. In the presence of the employee, the collection site personnel then pours part of the urine sample into a second container which is preserved for later testing if requested by the employee to verify initial results. The employee then seals and labels the urine specimens in the presence of the collection site personnel. The sample is sent to the testing lab, where lab personnel verify that the ID on the bottle and chain of custody form match, that there is sufficient volume, and that the tamper proof seal is intact. An initial test is performed. If it yields a positive result, a second test is done via Gas Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy. If this second test also yields a positive result, a positive test is reported to the Medical Review Officer. Otherwise, a negative test is reported. The Medical Review Officer reviews the test results and researches reasons for a confirmed positive test. This includes checking with the employee to determine if there is a legitimate medical explanation for the result such as a prescribed medication. If the Medical Review Officer determines that the positive test result does not have a legitimate medical explanation, the positive result is reported to the designated Employee Relations Representative. Failure to show up for testing and failure to provide a sample are also reported to the Employee Relations Department.
The parties agree that the state constitution provides greater individual protection than the federal constitution, so if the policy passes muster under Article I, Sections 14 and 21 of the Alaska Constitution, it is also constitutional under the comparable provisions of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the court will focus its attention on the constitutionality of the challenged portions of the policy under the state constitution.
Summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Alaska Civil Rule 56(c); see also Whaley v. State, 438 P.2d 718, 719 720 (Alaska 1968). A genuine issue of fact exists where reasonable jurors could disagree on the resolution of a factual issue. McGee Steel Co. v. State ex rel. McDonald Indus. of Alaska, Inc., 723 P.2d 611, 614 (Alaska 1986). The court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Clabaugh v. Bottcher, 545 P.2d 172, 175 n. 5 (Alaska 1976); Braun v. Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank, 816 P.2d 140, 142 n. 2 (Alaska 1991). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts demonstrating that a material issue of fact exists. Civil Rule 56(e); Howarth v. First Nat'l Bank of Anchorage, 540 P.2d 486, 489-90 (Alaska 1975), aff'd on rehearing, 551 P.2d 934 (Alaska 1976). If, in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must decide questions of law, the court will adopt the rule of law which is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy. Ford v. Municipality of Anchorage, 813 P.2d 654, 655 (Alaska 1991); Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). The parties agree that the issues raised are appropriately resolved by summary judgment because the details of the Municipality's substance abuse testing policy are uncontested (although its implications are not), and the question for the court is a legal one. See, e.g., American Federation of Government Employees v. Skinner, 885 F.2d 884, 894-95 (D.C.Cir.1989) (finding summary judgment procedure proper for reviewing constitutionality of drug testing program).

An individual's right to privacy is specifically protected by Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska State Constitution which provides in part: The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The right to privacy under the Alaska Constitution is broader and more encompassing than the right to privacy protected under the United States Constitution. Messerli v. State, 626 P.2d 81, 83 (Alaska 1980); Woods & Rohde v. State, Dept. of Labor, 565 P.2d 138, 148-49 (Alaska 1977); Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 514-15 (Alaska 1975). Although the right to privacy under the United States Constitution is only an inferred right emanating from other enumerated rights, Alaska's constitution explicitly lists privacy as one of the basic rights granted to all Alaskan citizens. Falcon v. Alaska Public Offices Commission, 570 P.2d 469, 476 (Alaska 1977). The Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the right to privacy as extending to the communication of private matters, a person's more intimate concerns, the type of personal information which, if disclosed even to a friend, could cause embarrassment or anxiety. Doe v. Alaska Superior Court, 721 P.2d 617, 629 (Alaska 1986) (quoting several prior Alaska cases). A right to privacy will be recognized where an individual has an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Jones v. Jennings, 788 P.2d 732, 738 (Alaska 1990). However, the right to privacy is not absolute. Messerli v. State, 626 P.2d 81, 83 (Alaska 1980). When a matter does affect the public, directly or indirectly, it loses its wholly private character, and can be made to yield when an appropriate public need is demonstrated. Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 504 (Alaska 1975), quoted in Doe v. Alaska Superior Court, 721 P.2d 617, 630 (Alaska 1986). Thus, the right to privacy must yield when it interferes in a serious manner with the health, safety, rights and privileges of others or with the public welfare. Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 504 (Alaska 1975).
The Alaska Supreme Court has articulated the following test for determining whether a challenged state action violates an individual's right to privacy. First, the court must determine the nature of the plaintiff's rights, if any, infringed upon by the state's action. Second, the court must resolve the question of whether the infringement is justified by determining (1) whether there is a proper governmental interest in imposing the restriction and (2) whether the means chosen bear a close and substantial relationship to the governmental interest. [11] Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 498 (Alaska 1975). Thus, in order to determine whether Plaintiffs have a valid privacy interest that outweighs the Municipality's interest in suspicionless substance abuse testing, the court must answer the following questions: a. Do employees have a subjective or actual expectation of privacy in the act of urination or in the information that can be disclosed by urinalysis which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable? b. If so, what is the nature and extent of Police and Fire Department employees' privacy and interest? c. Does the Municipality have a proper governmental interest in imposing suspicionless substance abuse testing on employees? d. If so, does suspicionless substance abuse testing bear a close and substantial relationship to the Municipality's proper governmental interest?