Michael Barrett, IV v. Donald Claycomb
705 F.3d 315, 2013 WL 322603 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public college's mandatory, suspicionless drug testing policy for all incoming students does not facially violate the Fourth Amendment if the college has a substantial interest in safety due to programs involving high-risk, safety-sensitive activities. To succeed on a facial challenge, a plaintiff must show that there is no set of circumstances under which the policy would be constitutional.
Facts:
- Linn State Technical College offers numerous two-year programs, many of which involve significant hands-on training.
- Students in certain programs, such as aviation maintenance and heavy equipment operations, work with active propeller blades, operate heavy machinery weighing up to twenty-five tons, and handle live electricity.
- On June 17, 2011, Linn State's Board of Regents instituted a mandatory drug-screening policy for all new and returning degree-seeking students.
- The stated purpose of the policy was to ensure a safe learning environment, and the results were not to be used for law enforcement purposes.
- As a condition of admission, students, including Michael Barrett, IV, were required to consent to the drug testing.
- The policy stipulated that a positive test would require the student to pass a subsequent test within 45 days to remain enrolled.
- The policy also provided a mechanism for students to petition the college president for a waiver from the testing requirement for any reason.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Barrett, IV, and other students (Appellees) filed a class-action lawsuit against Donald Claycomb and the Linn State Board of Regents (Appellants) in the United States District Court.
- The complaint alleged the college's mandatory drug-testing policy was facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and sought injunctive relief.
- The district court granted the students' motion for a temporary restraining order, halting further testing.
- Following a hearing, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the students were likely to succeed on the merits because the policy was unconstitutionally overbroad.
- The Linn State Board of Regents appealed the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public technical college's mandatory, suspicionless drug testing policy for all new and returning students facially violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Beam, Circuit Judge.
No. The public technical college's mandatory, suspicionless drug testing policy does not facially violate the Fourth Amendment. A facial challenge requires the plaintiff to prove that no set of circumstances exists under which the policy would be valid, an exceedingly high bar. The court found that the college has a 'special need' beyond normal law enforcement—ensuring safety—which justifies suspicionless searches in certain contexts. Balancing the government's interest against the students' privacy, the court determined that the state's interest in deterring drug use among students in safety-sensitive programs is substantial. Students in these programs, which involve heavy machinery and live electricity, have a diminished expectation of privacy, similar to employees in heavily regulated, safety-sensitive industries. Because the policy could be constitutionally applied to students in these high-risk programs, it cannot be declared unconstitutional on its face, even if it might be unconstitutional as applied to other students.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formidable difficulty of succeeding on a facial challenge to a government policy under the Fourth Amendment. It extends the 'special needs' and 'safety-sensitive' rationales from employment and high school contexts to a post-secondary technical college environment. The court's holding signals that public institutions with programs posing clear safety risks may implement broad, suspicionless drug testing policies that might otherwise be unconstitutional. The opinion critically distinguishes between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge, suggesting the outcome might have been different had the plaintiffs challenged the policy only as it applied to students in non-safety-sensitive programs.
