Opinion ID: 2507169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is There an Intrusion into Private Affairs of Students?

Text: ¶ 71 Even in light of the lower privacy interest of students and the even lower privacy interest of minors as student athletes, there is little doubt that requiring this urinalysis test is a significant invasion of privacy. In Robinson v. City of Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 795, 818, 10 P.3d 452 (2000), the Court of Appeals opined that [i]t is difficult to imagine an affair more private than the passing of urine. The United States Supreme Court similarly observed in reference to urination, `[m]ost people describe it by euphemisms if they talk about it at all. It is a function traditionally performed without public observation; indeed, its performance in public is generally prohibited by law as well as social custom.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 617, 109 S.Ct. 1402 (quoting Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 816 F.2d 170, 175 (5th Cir.1987), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989)). ¶ 72 There is no doubt that the privacy interest in the body and bodily functions is one Washington citizens have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass. Robinson, 102 Wash.App. at 819, 10 P.3d 452. As an indisputable invasion of privacy, [7] requiring a urinalysis test without probable cause of drug use must be authorized by the authority of law under our constitution.