Welcome!
Indiana State Personnel Department
Human Resources Conference
April 30 and May 1, 2008
Brown County Inn - Nashville, Indiana
DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING
• CDL Holders
• Reasonable Suspicion Testing
• Testing Designated Positions
Sally L. Burnell
State Personnel Department
April 30-May 1, 2008
WHAT SUBSTANCES WILL TESTING REVEAL?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol
Cocaine
Marijuana
Phencyclidine (PCP)
Opiates
Amphetamines
CDL Holders
• Restates current policy in new format.
• Includes 2007 amendment that negative doubledilute results are reported as negative and
disciplinary action is not appropriate.
• Will be accessible on SPD’s Web page from
Standardized Policy page.
Limitations on State’s Ability to Test Employees
• State is not a private employer – State is a
governmental entity whose actions are subject to
the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
• The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against
unreasonable searches by government.
• Drug/Alcohol Testing is a search.
Testing Designated Positions
• New category of employees (TDPs) subject to preemployment and random testing.
• Designated by agency heads according to
established criteria.
• Applies only to positions where the state’s interest
in the employee is greater than its general
interest on behalf of the public.
– Just driving a car is not a sufficiently significant
governmental interest.
TDP Criteria
Factors to be considered are the extent to which the position:
1. Authorizes employees to carry firearms;
2. Requires regular contact with offenders;
3. Requires transportation of or decision-making with regard to
the welfare of children or with regard to vulnerable adults
who are committed to the care of the state;
4. Gives employees access to sensitive information related to
homeland security or criminal justice activities;
5. Requires employees, as a condition of employment, to
obtain a security clearance;
(continued on
next slide)
TDP Criteria,
continued
6. Requires employees to engage in homeland
security or emergency response activities;
7. Requires employees to directly inspect products
or services where the failure of such products or
services may directly endanger the safety of the
public;
8. Involves the prosecution of criminal cases; or
9. Includes access to a controlled substance.
Effective Date: July 1, 2008
• Agency duties prior to effective date:
– Assign a Designated Employer Representative
(DER) to coordinate application of this policy
– Identify TDPs using criteria
– Submit a list of TDPs showing which criteria
applies
– Notify affected employees of designation as
TDP
– Designate percentage of TDPs to be tested
annually
(continued on next slide)
Effective Date, continued
• SPD duties prior to effective date:
– Review lists and discuss any concerns with
agencies
– Address any issues with third party
administrator
– Establish databases for random pools & process
for updating such information
Reasonable Suspicion And Unsafe Practices
• Applies to all state employees.
• Identifies process and criteria for testing.
• Smell of alcohol is insufficient to justify testing.
– Observation of additional behaviors required.
Reasonable Suspicion Criteria
Reasonable suspicion shall be deemed to exist when
any of the following occurs:
• Observable phenomena, such as direct
observation of drug use or possession and/or the
physical symptoms of being under the influence of
a drug or alcohol;
• Abnormal conduct or erratic behavior;
(continued on next slide)
Reasonable Suspicion Criteria,
continued
• Arrest or conviction for a drug-related offense; or
the identification of an employee as the focus of a
criminal investigation into illegal drug possession,
use, or trafficking;
• Information provided by a credible source; or
• Evidence that the employee has tampered with a
previous drug test.
Although reasonable suspicion does not require
certainty, mere “hunches” are not sufficient to
meet this standard.
Accidents and Unsafe Practices
Based on the circumstances of the accident or
unsafe act, testing may be initiated when there
is:
– Evidence of an unsafe practice.
– Significant damage to property.
– Careless operation of a vehicle.
– Significant injury to persons.
– A pattern of erratic incidents.
Questions?