Matter of Perez v. Ward, 69 N.Y.2d 840 (1987)
A public agency may lawfully order an employee to undergo urinalysis based on reasonable suspicion of drug use, supported by substantial evidence.
Summary
This case involves challenges by a police officer (Perez) and correction officers (King) to their dismissals for refusing to comply with orders to submit to urinalysis based on reported drug use. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the dismissals, finding that the urinalysis orders were justified by reasonable suspicion based on information from confidential informants. The court emphasized that a public agency may order urinalysis of an employee when there is reasonable suspicion of drug use, and determined that substantial evidence supported the administrative determinations in both cases. The court found the penalty of dismissal was appropriate and rejected the petitioners’ remaining arguments.
Facts
Regarding Perez: A reliable confidential informant, with a history of providing accurate information, reported to the police department that Perez was using heroin. Certain allegations made by the informant were verified. On the day before the urinalysis order, the informant stated that he had just witnessed Perez using heroin.
Regarding Melvin and Henry King: A confidential informant reported the correction officers’ use of illegal drugs at specific locations. The Inspector General’s office verified certain aspects of the information. Shortly before the urinalysis order, the informant advised the Inspector General that he had observed the officers using narcotics at the specified locations.
Procedural History
Perez and King separately challenged their dismissals in Article 78 proceedings. The lower courts upheld the dismissals. The cases were then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders for the police and correction officers to submit to urinalysis were lawful, given the standard that a public agency may order an employee to undergo urinalysis on reasonable suspicion of drug use?
Holding
Yes, because there was substantial evidence supporting the administrative determinations that reasonable suspicion existed to order the urinalysis in both cases.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on whether the “reasonable suspicion” standard for ordering urinalysis was met in each case. It highlighted the reliability of the informants and the verification of certain details they provided. Regarding Perez, the court emphasized the informant’s history of reliability and the recent sighting of Perez using heroin. Regarding the Kings, the court pointed to the informant’s report of drug use at specified locations and the Inspector General’s verification of some of that information. The court concluded that these facts constituted substantial evidence supporting the administrative determinations.
The court referenced Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, indicating that the penalty of dismissal was not erroneous under the circumstances. The court explicitly stated that the parties agreed on the applicable standard – reasonable suspicion – and therefore the court did not need to rule on what the proper standard should be, focusing instead on whether that agreed-upon standard was satisfied. The court stated: “these parties have agreed that a public agency may lawfully order an employee to undergo urinalysis on reasonable suspicion of drug use. The central issue is whether, on the facts presented, that standard was satisfied here.”
The court dismissed the petitioners’ remaining contentions as lacking merit.