## Facts

- Beginning in fall 1984, a public university implemented a drug-testing program for intercollegiate student-athletes that required urinalysis to detect controlled substances and, later, other substances.
- Participation was effectively mandatory: athletes had to sign written “consent” forms or be barred from intercollegiate athletics and rendered ineligible for athletic scholarships.
- Positive test results triggered sanctions including suspension from athletics and mandatory health counseling.
- Student-athletes filed a certified class action alleging the program violated the Fourth Amendment and the state constitutional search-and-seizure provision.
- The trial court found the program substantially invaded privacy, was not supported by evidence of an existing drug-abuse problem, and that the university’s asserted “reasonable suspicion” criteria (e.g., eye exam failure; tardiness; mood swings; aggressiveness) did not genuinely establish individualized suspicion.

## Issues

1. Whether random, suspicionless urinalysis drug testing of intercollegiate student-athletes at a state university constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution absent voluntary consent.
2. Whether consent obtained by requiring athletes to sign testing forms as a condition of participation and scholarship eligibility is voluntary for constitutional purposes.

## Decision

- The state supreme court affirmed the judgment upholding a permanent injunction against the testing program.
- The court held that, absent voluntary consent, random and suspicionless urinalysis testing of student-athletes is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and the parallel state constitutional provision.
- The court upheld the trial court’s finding that the university failed to prove athletes’ consents were voluntary.

## Legal Principles

- Compelled urinalysis for drug detection is a “search” subject to constitutional reasonableness requirements when conducted by state actors.
- Warrantless, suspicionless searches require justification under a reasonableness balancing analysis; generalized institutional interests are insufficient where the intrusion is substantial and the factual record does not show a demonstrated need addressed by the program.
- A program characterized as “reasonable suspicion” will be treated as suspicionless if the criteria lack a reliable, individualized nexus to drug use.
- The government bears the burden to prove voluntary consent; acquiescence to a condition tied to participation and scholarship eligibility is not voluntary consent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an injunction prohibiting the university’s drug-testing program, holding that random, suspicionless urinalysis of intercollegiate student-athletes at a public institution violates federal and state search-and-seizure protections unless the state proves truly voluntary consent.


Univ. of Colo. v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929 (Colo. 1993)