Court Opinion

ID: 9565758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:26:58.043366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.664784
License: Public Domain

Smith, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the Court of Appeals, Smith’s discharge was improper. The City should not have required Smith to submit to a urinalysis test without a reasonable, individualized suspicion that he was using drugs. The City admitted that it had no such suspicion of Smith.
To allow random drug testing of employees who carry arms to enforce the laws because they may endanger fellow employees and the public equates to random testing of all automobile drivers. A person behind the wheel of a car on an expressway poses a danger to more people than an armed policeman does.
*115Eidson & Llewellyn, James A. Eidson, James W. Kytle, for appellants.
Scott Walters, Jr., for appellee.
Frank L. Derrickson, amicus curiae.