I find it hard to believe anyone will post on this site why random drug testing for police officers is unconstitutional. Of all the people that must go through random drug testing, I would think police officers would be near the top of the list. If it is a requirement for employment, it is not unconstitutional. My husband works at a grocery warehouse, and he has to do random drug testing. Athletes have to do it. So why should it be any different for those who have taken an oath to uphold the law?
Random drug testing just makes sense for certain professions. Where I would find a constitution problem would be if only certain ones were singled out for testing while others were allowed to skip it. It is only in its randomness that it becomes fair for all.
It's sad that we have to have drug testing at all in this society. Drugs are a huge problem, and they are not confined to the druggies' of old. No longer can you tell who is high and who is not. With ever increasing kinds of drugs available, people can hide their addictions for longer and still function in their jobs.
We would expect our police officers, our doctors, and anyone else whose job involves the safety of others would be drug free, but this is not always true. It happens, and random drug testing helps keep people honest. It also helps find those who are abusing drugs on the job. This only makes sense.
In the end, it is sad that it has to be done, but it is not unconstitutional as long as it continues to be random and stipulated in the job description. When you sign up for the job, you know random drug testing will be performed as part of the job. It's not curtailing anyone's freedom; it is just having a policy that keeps people honest and points out problems before they become big headaches for the employer and the people they serve.