Law.com Blog Network

About The Bloggers

Blogroll

Urine Sample Collector Will Be 'Directly Observing the Urine Coming Straight Out of Your Body,' Thank You Very Much

There are some times that a man simply does not want to have a stranger “directly observe the urine coming straight out of his body.” Am I right, men? Is it really necessary to require a guy to provide a urine sample in a fashion that allows the "collector" of this test to have constant "visibility of the participant's genitalia?”

[Sidenote: It now occurs to me that the following conversation has probably taken place at some point in history:

Q: What do you do for a living?
A: I'm a collector.
Q: What do you collect?
A: Urine samples.]

Moving on. Via How Appealing I see that on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that if a urine sample collection company wants to have a rule that its collectors shall directly observe the urine coming straight out of a man's body, with visibility of that man's genitalia, well, that is just fine with the 6th Circuit.

Was this "direct observation" an overly intrusive, unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment? No sir, the 6th Circuit held, because the appellant had agreed to undergo drug testing and

[t]he government had a strong-indeed, a compelling-interest in insuring the accuracy of the drug testing by preventing Norris from giving a false specimen.... The record shows that it is easy and widespread for people providing urine for drug testing to substitute false or inaccurate specimens and that only the direct observation method of obtaining such samples is fully effective “to prevent cheating on drug tests,” in the language of the district court. Neither the Kentucky authorities nor Premier acted improperly in requiring that method.

Posted by Bruce Carton on April 8, 2011 at 03:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Comments

 
 
 
About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions