Drug Testing in the work place?

I鈥檝e often wondered, when someone fails a drug test, why the employer is not obligated under the law to report the failure to the police.

The drug screening serves as pure evidence a controlled illicit drug has been used. If nothing else it is at least probable cause.

If the guy had a prescription, the employer would never have been informed of the failure.

To me, it would seem like, failure to report such things would mean the employer is aiding and abetting.

So my question is this鈥?br>
Why are employers not expected to report to the police when someone fails a drug test?

stacy: so when cops threaten you with "withholding evidence" it's a lie?

1: it's legal to buy tobacco in NY but you can't use it at work, if you come into work within 24 hours of being drunk they can fire you...why would that one ounce be different?

Citizens cannot be required by law to report a crime to the police. The only cases in which this happens - "mandatory reporting" - is in cases of child abuse, etc. and by licensed professionals. For example, social workers are required to report evidence of abuse, but they are subjected to a higher standard than the general public. The police cannot require any citizen to file charges against any other citizen. It's the same as if you were walking down the street and you witnessed someone smoking meth in the alley - you would not, and could not, be legally required to report that crime.

In the example you gave before, you would not be charged for withholding evidence. That charge could only apply if there were an open investigation, you were an integral part of it, and after being specifically asked by the police for the drug test results you still refused to provide them. Report Abuse

As part of a condition for the employee to keep his/her job he/she is forced to take the test. They are not really consenting of their own free will, they have to do it. Because of this it really can't be used against a person. The Police would need a warrant or consent to get this test. Any two bit lawyer would get the pee test thrown out and any evidence stemming from it.

Furthermore, companies really aren't interested in the narcotics laws. They are looking after their own collective backsides. They want to protect themselves from lawsuits and (to a lesser extent) try to have healthier employees.

My best thought is that it is part of the drug free work place. Law enforcement official conduct their own drug screening when it is required of them. Companies are utilizing drug screening to reject those individuals that they deem unemployable for illicit drugs. Some view personnel that use drugs will do other illegal things in the workplace.

I am curious to what you think the police would do about it

unless the person being tested is on probation for drug abuse, it isn't a crime to have drugs in your system

"the road to a police state is paved with good intentions"

it depends in your contract of employment states if drugs
found after test instant dismissal

Because in order to be tried for a crime concerning narcotics with the exception of parole, the evidence has to be present. If you called the cops and said that your friend just left the house after drinking a liter of vodka, an officer cannot pull over that person unless he sees him driving unsafe or a cause to pull over the person arises. In the case of a positive drug test you would have to prove the person dd it and provide the drugs that he/she used. Hows this one for an answer "Officer, I swear, I never did drugs in my life! Someone musta slipped it into my drink" Now the burden has to go on the DA to prove this did not happen and so goes the tax payers money on a crap shot that is imposable to prove.

My state just decriminalized 1 ounce or less of pot. Hows that going to play in a private company if someone gets into an accident and tests positive for it? You cant fire them for it because it isn't a crime in Massachusetts. This now opens the door for mega law suits.