76 N.Y.2d 995 (1990)

Random urinalysis drug testing of probationary correction officers, under a department policy known to the officer, is constitutionally permissible and does not require reasonable suspicion.

Summary

McKenzie, a probationary correction officer, was terminated after testing positive for cannabis in a random urinalysis. The test was part of the Westchester County Department of Correction’s policy for probationary officers. McKenzie was aware of this policy upon accepting the position. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, finding the random drug testing constitutional, aligning with the established exception for employees in safety-sensitive positions, and consistent with its decision in Seelig v. Koehler regarding tenured correction officers. The court emphasized that the policy was known to the officer when accepting the position.

Facts

McKenzie was a probationary correction officer in Westchester County.

The Westchester County Department of Correction had a policy mandating random urinalysis drug tests for probationary correction officers.

McKenzie was aware of this policy when he accepted the position.

During his probationary period, McKenzie tested positive for cannabis in a random urinalysis.

He was subsequently dismissed from his position.

Procedural History

McKenzie challenged his dismissal, arguing the random drug test was unconstitutional.

The lower court upheld the dismissal.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The New York Court of Appeals granted review.

Issue(s)

Whether the random urinalysis drug testing of a probationary correction officer, without reasonable suspicion, violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Holding

No, because random drug testing of probationary correction officers is permissible under the exception articulated in Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ., especially when the officer is aware of the policy upon accepting the position.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied on its decision in Matter of Seelig v Koehler, which held that random urinalysis testing of tenured correction officers in the New York City Department of Correction, without reasonable suspicion, was constitutionally permissible. The court found the circumstances and procedures in McKenzie’s case nearly identical to those in Seelig.

The court also cited Matter of Caruso v Ward, further solidifying the permissibility of random drug testing for employees in safety-sensitive positions.

The court emphasized that McKenzie was aware of the department’s policy requiring random drug tests when he accepted the probationary position. This awareness factored into the court’s determination that his reasonable expectation of privacy was diminished.

The court reasoned that, given the nature of the position as a correction officer and the known policy of random drug testing, the intrusion on McKenzie’s privacy was outweighed by the government’s interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace, particularly in a correctional facility.

The court did not provide direct quotes but referenced its previous holdings and applied similar reasoning to the case at hand.