Opinion ID: 2514279
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the Testing Policy Violate Employees' Constitutional Right to Privacy Under Article I, Section 22, of the Alaska Constitution?

Text: 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?