AR: Police officer could be tested for drugs randomly and here with individual suspicion

A police officer’s wife, also an officer, reported to the Chief that her husband was using steroids, and the department ordered a drug test. The test was valid under Skinner and Von Raab because he carried a gun and was arresting drug defendants, and there was individualized suspicion from the wife’s report. Green v. City of North Little Rock, 2012 Ark. App. 21, 388 S.W.3d 85 (2012):

We also note that, in the present case, not only did the test meet the general reasonableness standard, but the City actually had some “measure of individualized suspicion.” Id. As mentioned above, Bradley determined that he had reasonable suspicion to order a drug test of Green based not solely on Green’s ex-wife’s allegation about the bag of syringes and the bank statements showing purchases of steroids, but also on his own personal observation of Green’s physical appearance and recent aggressiveness, traits which Bradley associated with the use of anabolic steroids. The Police Department’s drug policy provides that an officer may be required to submit to chemical testing “[w]hen the City has reasonable suspicion that a member has violated any of the [policy’s] prohibitions regarding use of alcohol or drugs.” Under the policy, “reasonable suspicion” must be “based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech or body odors of the member.” Clearly, Bradley’s observations, coupled with Carmen Green’s allegations, provided the Police Department with reasonable suspicion to order Green to submit to a drug test.