CA4: Not clearly established that VA DOC can’t drug test a Telecommunications Network Coordinator

Qualified immunity applies to the Virginia DOC directing a drug test of a Telecommunications Network Coordinator. “After VDOC fired Garrett for declining a random drug test, Garrett sued, alleging that VDOC employees violated his Fourth Amendment rights by applying VDOC’s drug testing policy to him. The defendants asserted qualified immunity and moved to dismiss. The district court denied the motion, concluding that general constitutional principles clearly establish Garrett’s right to be free from suspicionless drug testing. We disagree. Applying the correct standard, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” Garrett v. Clarke, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 18946 (4th Cir. July 25, 2023):

These cases do not clearly establish that applying VDOC’s drug-testing policy to Garrett was unconstitutional. None of these cases arose in the prison context or directly implicate concerns about prison contraband. In broad strokes, the relevant binding authority establishes that a suspicionless drug test calibrated to address a genuine safety risk may be reasonable. See Chandler, 520 U.S. at 323. And the wholly symbolic special need asserted in Chandler—the only case to disapprove a suspicionless drug test—bears no resemblance to the interests in prison safety and a sober corrections workforce that Defendants assert here. Put simply, no controlling authority precluded prison officials in this Circuit from reasonably believing that applying OP 135.4 to Garrett was consistent with his Fourth Amendment rights. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 638.