skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 115466 Find in a Library
Title: Testing, Testing: Drug, AIDS Tests Upheld
Journal: ABA (American Bar Association) Journal  Dated:(February 1989)  Pages:96
Author(s): P Reidinger
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 1
Type: Legislation/Policy Description
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Two 'liberal' State courts have recently upheld the use of drug and AIDS testing against civil liberties claims.
Abstract: The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that random drug testing of an elite police unit does not unreasonably invade the officers' privacy interests. The majority concluded that the officers' privacy claims were not protected by the rationale of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education, in which the court held that reasonable suspicion was required before school teachers could be tested for drug use. The cases are distinguished because 'the school district's asserted interest in a drug-free teaching staff was limited to ensuring that its teachers are fit and that drug abuse does not impair their ability to deal with the students.' Whereas, the officers are effectively on duty 24 hours a day, and the department has a 'justifiable interest' in keeping its 'main line offense and defense in the war against drug trafficking' free of drug use. In another case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has held that the State insurance commissioner exceeded his authority when he prohibited health insurers from testing insurance applicants for infection with the virus thought to cause AIDS. The court held that 'insurers have the right to classify risks and to elect not to insure risks if the discrimination is fair.'
Main Term(s): Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS)
Index Term(s): Drug testing; Educators; Insurance claim investigations; Police drug use; Right of privacy
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.