It is at the same time the most efficient method of dissuasion and of drugs of the most controversial type of screening of drugs. Unpredictable of screening of drugs is delegated by the American Department of transport, what means that many employers in the United States do not have other choice than to implement unpredictable programmes of screening of drugs. Even when the antidrug tests made haphazardly an efficient dissuasion is not legally kept, of many organisations to use antidrug tests made haphazardly in small ladder as. To their facial value in the United States, the antidrug tests made haphazardly, a violation of the fourth amendment of American Constitution seems to constitute which protects the right of the citizens "to be guaranteed in their persons, domiciles, papers and effects, against house searches and seizures». Besides, Fourth Amendment that '«no mandate will be awarded only for a credible motive, supported by oath or affirmation, nor without its describing the place particularly to be searched and the persons or things to be grabbed." Nonetheless, the United States of the Supreme Court gave a ruling in Skinner v. Railway Labor Assn., 489 US 602 (1989) that unpredictable screening is allowed for the employees in the security of sensitive posts. The judge Kennedy, expressing himself for the majority, wrote:
[L] e government in interest of trials without the demonstration of a definite suspicion is persuasive. The wage earners subjected to rights of tests of discharge of the heavy of such risks of wound for others than even an instant of inattention can have disastrous consequences to the interest of the general public [] Even if no procedure can identify all employees with weakened faculties, with ease and a perfect precision, regulations FRA give an efficient means to dissuade the employees who exercise tasks of sensitive security of the use of regulated substances or of some alcohol above all.
The opinion dissident by the judges Marshal and Brennan illustrates the opposite side of controversy:
Question, in that case is not to know if, declaring war against illicit drugs a public good politics is. The importance to free our society of such medicaments is, supporting, obvious for all. Rather, question is to know if the deployment of the government in this war of a particularly draconian weapon - compulsory collection and of chemical analysis of the blood, the railway workers and urines - agrees with the fourth amendment. Precisely because the necessity of an action against the blight of the drug is obvious, the necessity of alertness against excesses unconstitutional am big. History teaches us that the serious threats in freedom often come in urgent period, when constitutional laws seem too extravagant to support. The World War II - Case of the camp of reinstatement, Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 US 81 (1943); Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214 (1944), and red danger and McCarthy-era case internal subversion, Schenck c. The United States, 249 US 47 (1919); Dennis v. United States, 341 US 494 (1951), are only the most extreme recalls only when we allow fundamental liberties to be sacrificed in the name of real or perceptible requirement, we always succeed in regretting it.
Today, to the United States, the antidrug tests made haphazardly is used by firms, detoxification centres, prisons, military police and services of fire, governmental organisms and, more recently, schools. This method in May also to be used on the teenagers by their parents, or made responsible for carrying out on the teenagers to the school. The point of an unpredictable test of drugs is dissuasion, because the threat of detection am much higher in comparison with other trial methods. Various doubtful methods are used to determine who gets studied, going of the development of names to a hat, cheat your urine test methods more defensible such as generators of unpredictable numbers robust. However, many antidrug tests made by chance from the systems of selection are legally indefensible, because he not ya anything to prevent the users from targeting individuals by names of regeneration with the generator of chance until desired result is produced. Most systems have falsify proof without track of check (recording of the base is easy to change, if the employers or their reactive agents have not to have access to files trace check for unpredictable selection to be defensible). Finally, the appointment of thirds to choose haphazardly the subjects of screening of drugs is not legally defensible, because there is no means to prove that there had not been conspiracy to choose a person especially.
The objective of the unpredictable tests is to discourage the usage of drugs at the employees, the prisoners or the pupils by not saying whoever or when they are beforehand going to be tested. However, critics maintain that the unpredictable tests introduces a presumption of guilt, and constitutes a violation of private life if the user is in fact not state of intoxication during hours of employment. Besides, unpredictable tests is more likely to catch the users of cannabis, given that the métabolites of THC has a longer length in organism than those of many other medicaments.
