Published: May 14, 2009 10:25 pm      

ACLU questions Raleigh drug-testing policy

A new drug-testing policy adopted by the Raleigh County Commission has come under question by the American Civil Liberties Union in West Virginia.

Come Tuesday, the ACLU’s field organizer in the state, Seth DiStefano, plans to outline his group’s concerns at the commission meeting in Beckley.

Another major item on the agenda revives the issue of a possible fire levy, intended to raise sufficient operating capital for the county’s 13 volunteer fire departments, many of which are struggling to stay above water.

Heading up the discussion on that will be veteran firefighter Jim Shannon of the Beaver VFD.

Commissioners agreed to impose the drug-testing policy this month, justifying the need by an expressed concern that an employee using illegal narcotics and driving a county vehicle could expose taxpayers to liability in an accident.

“We’ve identified a few things that I think are problematic,” DiStefano said Thursday.

In a contract the commission approved, the drug testing will be administered at $8.50 a screen by Southern Regional Treatment Courts Laboratory of Princeton, working in harness with the Mercer Day Report Center.

Based on media accounts of the contract, DiStefano said, he questions “an element of the drug-testing policy that would allow any county employee, regardless of suspicion, to be forced into drug testing.”

“And I don’t think that’s constitutional,” he added.

“We have some other concerns. First and foremost is the random, suspicionless component.”

Commission president John Humphrey has said he harbors no thoughts about county employees beset with drug problems within any arm of county government, but such a policy seems necessary as a safeguard, particularly for employees assigned to drive in their employment.

“We think it’s the right thing to do — randomly drug test our employees,” he said earlier.

DiStefano said the ACLU isn’t concerned over the pre-employment phase of testing, which the sheriff’s department has endorsed.

“From what I’ve read, the definition of safety-sensitive is really broad and easily would include every employee,” he said.

“But the random and suspicionless component? I don’t think it holds muster, to be honest with you.”

Courts generally have agreed that testing in a pre-employment manner and for “good-faith suspicion” is acceptable if properly applied, DiStefano said.

“But to write a policy that would include everyone and just pull everyone in is something I don’t think will hold up,” he added.

— E-mail:

mannix@register-herald.com