random testing of police officers under the Fourth Amendment because, like the customs employees in Von Raab, police officers carry firearms and participate in drug interdiction. The Supreme Court of Hawaii, analyzing random testing of police officers under a state constitutional provision similar to New Jersey’s Article I, Paragraph 7, has reached the same result. McCloskey v. Honolulu Police Dep’t, 71 Haw. 568, 799 P.2d 953, 958-59 (1990). Hawaii’s high court relied on the police officers’ diminished expectations of privacy and on its finding that the “testing program [was] not more intrusive than needed” to uphold the Honolulu Police Department’s random testing program. Id. 799 P.2d at 958-59. But see Guiney v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 411 Mass. 328, 582 N.E.2d 523, 526 (1991) (<HOLDING>). -D- The PBA argues that the special needs
holding that consensual random drug testing of students participating in extracurricular activities were searches under the fourth amendment even though they were not part of a criminal investigation and a positive test resulted only in suspension from participation holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation  it was  not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program holding that random drug testing for student athletes did not violate their fourth amendment rights holding railroad regulation requiring random drug testing without particularized suspicion to be reasonable in light of connection to public safety holding boston police departments random drug testing program unconstitutional under state constitution because body searches cannot be justified by some generalized sense that there is a drug problem  and that random urinalyses of police officers will solve or at least help to solve the problem or its consequences