An inmate's reasonable expectation of personal privacy is sufficiently reduced in prison to allow prison authorities to obtain random urine samples without antecedant cause, but inmates do retain a sufficient interest in their personal privacy and dignity to limit the number of such random tests and to have only one correctional officer as witness to the obtaining of the specimen. A prison which does not use a double-test procedure to confirm a positive specimen is vulnerable to a successful legal challenge. Prisons must also be careful to follow chain-of-custody requirements for urinalysis specimens. Given corrections employees' greater expectation of privacy compared with inmates, courts have ruled that reasonable cause or suspicion is required for a strip search or urine testing. Neither random urine testing nor highly intrusive searches are being allowed. Regarding urine testing for probationers and parolees, the constitutionality of random testing will generally depend on mandated supervision conditions; however, the general condition of parole and probation carries a greater expectation of privacy than imprisonment. If there is cause to believe that a supervisee is using illegal drugs, urine testing based on reasonable suspicion would likely be constitutional. 89 footnotes.