Schoenfield v. County of Humboldt

How later courts describe this case

• finding that the Army has a compelling safety interest in randomly drug testing its civilian employees who fly and service its airplanes and helicopters, who are civilian police and guards, and who are involved in drug interdiction
• privacy expectations of security guards reduced because they are already subjected to extensive medical examinations and background checks
• reduced privacy expectations by requirement to report any illness or incident resulting from use of prescription drugs
• "[R]elease of [employee's names and home addresses] would violate the Privacy Act"
• pre-employment screenings and medical tests lower reasonable privacy expectations of Army civilian guards
• “[RJelease of [employee’s names and home addresses] would violate the Privacy Act”
• civilian Department of Defense police and guards
• testing of army civilian police