Court Opinion

ID: 9741486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:56:33.144662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.384106
License: Public Domain

Liacos, C.J.
(concurring). I join the court in rejecting as unconstitutional Boston Police Department Rule Ill’s authorization of random, mandatory urinalysis for Boston police officers. The facts of the present case differ sharply from those in O’Connor v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 408 Mass. 324, 332 (1990) (Liacos, C.J., concurring), where I concurred with this court’s decision that mandatory urinalysis for a police cadet did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. The keystone of my concurrence in O’Connor was the fact that the plaintiff cadet had consented to submit to mandatory urinalysis. Id. The present case, however, involves no such consent.1
While I concur with the result reached in this case, I must reiterate my concern with this court’s willingness to consider the “balance” of public interests ágainst privacy interests in determining the constitutionality of searches and seizures. See O’Connor v. Police Comm’r of Boston, supra at 332 (Liacos, C.J., concurring); Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Ass’n, Inc. v. State Racing Comm’n, 403 Mass. 692, 706 (1989) (Liacos, J., concurring). Notwithstanding its allusion *335to the laws of physics, and their concomitant certainty and precision, a “balancing” test subjects the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures to a standard only slightly more enduring than the latest public opinion poll. It is my firm belief that the use of these tests, no matter how well-intended, will result in the eventual dissolution of this precious constitutional right. The focus of the constitutional analysis must remain on the issue whether reasonable cause exists to justify the particular search and seizure at issue. See Commonwealth v. Shields, 402 Mass. 162, 169 (1988) (Liacos, J., dissenting).

 A question arises as to whether an employer constitutionally can require an employee to consent to mandatory urinalysis as a condition of employment. Because the facts of the present case do not involve this scenario, I reserve my opinion on this issue for a more appropriate case.