Opinion ID: 525548
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Integrity

Text: 19 The broadest theory advanced by DOJ at oral argument was that its interest in ensuring the integrity of its workforce would justify the random drug testing of every federal employee. Certainly that theory finds no support in Von Raab. The Court there noted that [u]nlike most private citizens or government employees in general, employees involved in drug interdiction reasonably should expect effective inquiry into their fitness and probity. 109 S.Ct. at 1394 (emphasis added). We do not, of course, question the obvious principle that the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its employees obey the law. The issue is whether that interest is sufficiently compelling to justify a search. Von Raab, it seems to us, suggests that federal employment alone is not a sufficient predicate for mandatory urinalysis. 7 20 Nor is it sufficient in our view that DOJ employees are, broadly speaking, engaged in law enforcement. Again, it is beyond dispute that those who enforce the law have a particular obligation to obey it. Von Raab, however, suggests that the government may search its employees only when a clear, direct nexus exists between the nature of the employee's duty and the nature of the feared violation. The Court emphasized the particular dangers inherent in drug use by employees directly engaged in drug interdiction. No such nexus is present in this case. The fact that a DOJ employee is a federal prosecutor, has access to grand jury proceedings, or holds a security clearance in no way identifies her as an employee responsible for the enforcement of federal narcotics laws. 21 In its supplemental brief, DOJ argues that [i]t would make little sense to say that the 'national interest in self protection' vis-a-vis illegal drug trafficking applies to the Customs agent who makes the arrest but not to the Justice Department prosecutor who handles the matter from that point on. Supplemental Brief for Thornburgh at 5 n. 5. In discussing the integrity rationale, the Supreme Court emphasized that the national interest in self protection could be irreparably damaged if those charged with safeguarding it were, because of their own drug use, unsympathetic to their mission of interdicting narcotics. Von Raab, 109 S.Ct. at 1393. Certainly this reasoning applies with equal force to the DOJ attorney who prosecutes federal drug cases. The Court also noted, however, that Customs officials engaged in drug interdiction may be tempted not only by bribes from the traffickers with whom they deal, but also by their own access to vast sources of valuable contraband seized and controlled by the Service. Id. at 1392. No such concern is present here. 8 The analogy suggested by DOJ must therefore be regarded as substantial but imperfect. 22 It seems quite possible that the Department might constitutionally fashion a random drug-testing program for all DOJ employees having substantial 9 responsibility for the prosecution of federal drug offenders. We need not resolve that question now, however, since DOJ has not, as yet, fashioned such a program. 10 The government has not so far identified a separate category of drug prosecutors, but instead has required that all employees who prosecute criminal cases must undergo random testing. We do not believe, however, that under Von Raab an attorney who prosecutes antitrust or securities fraud cases can plausibly be analogized to a customs agent whose job is drug interdiction. We therefore conclude that the government's integrity interest cannot justify the testing of any one of the three broad categories at issue here.