Opinion ID: 2514279
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ravin Balancing Test

Text: 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?