in the Fourth Amendment privacy clause. Yet in Drug Testing this is not the case. In Allen v. City of Marietta, the Georgian court felt constrained by current law to hold that a urinalysis is indeed a search. (Berger, 51). Urinalysis is most definitely a search considering that a search of one’s home is considered invading privacy, what about one’s urine? This is the most personal and private information one can give out. Another clause in the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution is that of Due Process. The Fourth Amendment clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.” Pre-employment drug screening completely defies this in that it gives a prospective employee no chance of challenging the test. The job seeker is not considered for employment without even knowing that it was because of a positive drug test. There have been many cases that a person is eliminated from the job pool because of a positive outcome of a drug test and the person is not a drug user. The prospective employee has no chance to explain a positive test due to a prescription drug or certain foods. It is possible to be a job-seeker and never obtain a job because of positive results on a drug test due to a prescription drug, unless the prospective employer uses their time to show the results. Drug testing without a prior suspicion or probable cause can also lead to the absence of Equal protection under the law, the Fourteenth Amendment (Holtorf, 135). “The Fourteenth Amendment was cited as protection against selection of a group of athletes for testing by the National Collegiate Athletic Association without demonstrating a likelihood that drug use was prevalent in that population” (Holtorf, 136). Drug tests today are considerably weak. Mistakes and errors swarm the vast business of drug testing. “Clinical laboratories are not experienced with the special requirem...
