ATTORNEY ADVISES WARRANT VIOLATES 4TH AMENDMENT

SEABROOK - Mandatory drug testing of all town employees, including those
elected, is unconstitutional, Seabrook's attorney has advised selectmen.

In March, voters passed by a 3-to-1 margin a petitioned warrant article
requiring random drug and alcohol tests for anyone working for the town.

The town adopted a drug policy in 1998. It stipulates random drug testing
for town employees carrying a commercial driver's license.

Other town employees may be tested if there is a reasonable suspicion
they're abusing drugs or alcohol, said Town Manager Fred Welch. The policy
does not apply to elected officials, he said.

Random drug and alcohol testing of most employees violates the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on unreasonable searches and seizures,
Town Attorney Walter Mitchell said. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the
taking of body fluids for the purpose of drug and alcohol testing, unless
there is just cause, represents a seizure, Mitchell said.

In addition, the state Supreme Court has identified no drug- and
alcohol-related requirement as a qualification for elected office, he said.
Selectmen have no authority to impose their own qualifications when they're
already provided in the statute.

Other questions arise from the article, Mitchell said: the cost of the
testing, which was not indicated in the warrant; the standards of what
constitutes a "positive" test; and enforcement if someone refuses to be tested.

Selectmen have not implemented the March vote because of their attorney's
opinion. On Oct. 27, Mitchell wrote an explanation as to why selectmen
cannot start random drug and alcohol testing for themselves, other elected
officials and most town employees.

"It lets people know who had voted for this," Selectman Cora Stockbridge
said. "This would be an explanation why."