adverse consequences by failing to submit to a urinalysis in that DOC officials charged Plaintiff with disobeying a lawful order and assessed punitive segregation and loss of good time credits. Because of these adverse consequences and in light of the government employee cases, we hold that Plaintiff may properly raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the request for a urinalysis. We must next determine whether the request that Plaintiff submit to a urinalysis violated Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights. A urinalysis constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and therefore must be conducted in a reasonable manner. See Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1986); see also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767-68, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1833-34, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether a search of a prisoner
holding blood testing for alcohol content a search holding search of blood alcohol tests not permitted under section 1547 where suspect under arrest and police did not request testing holding that the fourth amendment is implicated by the withdrawal of blood to test its alcohol content holding that blood alcohol content almost 30 over the limit together with testimony of intoxication at the time of driving was sufficient to convict contrasting a case in which the blood alcohol content was just barely over the limit which was insufficient to convict holding a minnesota statute that required police to advise drivers that they were not permitted to consult with an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to or refuse blood alcohol content testing and one that imposed criminal penalties on individuals who refused to submit to blood alcohol testing within five years of a prior drivers license revocation unconstitutional as applied