## Facts

- Jacoby L. Garrett worked for the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) as a Telecommunications Network Coordinator beginning in 2016.
- About 70% of his work involved assisting VDOC staff with mobile devices; he also worked on IT projects involving phones, data connections, and video conferencing.
- He worked primarily at VDOC headquarters, which did not house inmates, though some low-risk offenders worked there; his contact with offenders was casual (e.g., cafeteria contact).
- He occasionally traveled to prisons for IT work but did not supervise or monitor inmates and did not carry a firearm.
- VDOC policy required random drug testing of salaried employees; failure to report could lead to termination. Garrett acknowledged the policy upon hiring.
- In June 2018, Garrett was notified he had been selected for a random drug test; he initially agreed but left to meet his manager after being told he could test “next time.”
- The next day, the personnel assistant reported Garrett had refused the test; VDOC placed him on pre-disciplinary leave and terminated him for refusal.
- Garrett sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that applying random, suspicionless drug testing to him violated the Fourth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether applying VDOC’s random, suspicionless drug-testing policy to an IT employee with no traditional security duties plausibly constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the individual VDOC officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of testing an employee in Garrett’s position was not clearly established at the time.

## Decision

- The court denied the officials’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
- The court held Garrett plausibly alleged an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment as applied to his job duties.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged the right was clearly established under governing suspicionless drug-testing doctrine, so qualified immunity was unavailable at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A urine drug test is a Fourth Amendment search.
- Suspicionless drug testing may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment only when justified by “special needs” beyond ordinary law enforcement.
- Under the special-needs analysis, courts balance the individual’s privacy interests against the government’s asserted need, considering the nature of the work and the immediacy and gravity of the governmental concerns.
- Qualified immunity bars damages liability unless the plaintiff plausibly alleges (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the right was clearly established such that reasonable officials would have understood their conduct was unlawful.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that an IT employee’s allegations of minimal inmate contact and lack of safety-sensitive duties plausibly defeated any special-need justification for random, suspicionless drug testing, and it allowed the Fourth Amendment claim to proceed by denying the officials qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.


Garrett v. Clarke, 552 F. Supp. 3d 539 (E.D. Va. 2021)