 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMPLOYEE REASONABLENESS OFFICERS POLICE MEMBERS COURT PLAN INTRUSION PRIVACY SEELIG UNREGULATED DISCRETION CARUSO NASSAU COUNTY STANDARD ASSIGNMENT MATTER REASONABLE EXPECTATION COMMISSIONER INDEPENDENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT NY2D SELECTION PATCHOGUE-MEDFORD SAFEGUARDS REQUIRING VOLUNTEER TECHNIQUE POOL |
IN THE MATTER OF GARY DELARABA, &C. v. NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET
AL.,
83 N.Y.2d 367, 632 N.E.2d 1251, 610 N.Y.S.2d 928 (1994).
March 22, 1994
2 No. 32 (1994 NY Int. 034)
Decided March 22, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
CIPARICK, J.:
The question this Court confronts is whether the frequency with which
a random drug testing program is conducted can render the plan
unconstitutional on the grounds that it is unreasonably intrusive and
subjects the affected members' reasonable expectation of privacy to
unregulated discretion.
I.
The Commissioner of Police of the Nassau County Police Department,
pursuant to 1989 Orders Numbers 16 and 27, authorized a program of
drug testing, without reasonable suspicion, providing for monthly
random testing of ten members of its 100 member narcotics bureau,
special narcotics enforcement and the scientific investigation bureau.
Testing would be performed on an "independent trial" basis such that
the random selection would not result in the removal of that member
from the selection process for subsequent months.
The President of the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) of Nassau
County commenced this Article 78 proceeding seeking to prohibit
respondents from implementing the plan on the ground that the
frequency of the testing would be impermissibly intrusive. Supreme
Court dismissed the petition holding that the statistical
probabilities do not render the proposed testing unconstitutional, but
the Appellate Division reversed, holding that "absent some evidence
that the desired objectives require the frequency of testing under
respondents' plan and cannot be accomplished with a less stringent
testing schedule, we must conclude that the affected members'
reasonable expectations of privacy are subject to unregulated
discretion, and that the respondent's plan is therefore unreasonably
intrusive" (192 AD2d 655, 657).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
