Green v. City of North Little Rock, 388 S.W.3d 85

Green, a former North Little Rock police officer, was subjected to a January 9, 2007 drug test based on reasonable suspicion arising from Carmen Green's allegations and Green's recent conduct/appearance.
Bradley ordered the test after noting Green's swollen appearance and two prior hostile incidents with colleagues, alongside Carmen's information.
The urine sample was initially reported as positive for high nandrolone by the examining physician, but the final test interpretation concluded a negative result with a past legal use noted.
Green was placed on administrative leave pending the investigation and later returned to work, while continuing to raise concerns about the process.
Green filed suit December 15, 2008, asserting Fourth Amendment, Garrity, and FMLA claims; the City moved for summary judgment arguing no constitutional or FMLA violations and entitlement to qualified immunity.
The circuit court granted summary judgment on all issues, and Green appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the drug test was a reasonable Fourth Amendment search	Green argues there was no probable cause and the test was an unconstitutional search.	City contends the test was reasonable due to safety interests and limited privacy expectations.	Drug test deemed reasonable under special-needs doctrine; no Fourth Amendment violation.
Whether Garrity protections apply to drug testing	Green asserts Garrity protections bar the drug test as coercive.	Garrity does not apply to non-testimonial biological samples.	Garrity inapplicable; test does not violate Garrity protections.
Whether the FMLA grants a light-duty entitlement and if denial violated the Act	Green claims denial of light duty interfered with or retaliated under the FMLA.	There is no entitlement to light-duty under the FMLA; no interference established.	No FMLA violation; no entitlement to light duty under FMLA.
Whether the City is entitled to qualified immunity	Green argues a constitutional right was violated and clearly established.	No violation occurred; rights not clearly established.	Qualified-immunity issue deemed moot as no constitutional violation occurred.

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (drug testing may be permitted under special needs where privacy interests are minimized)
Von Raab v. United States Customs Serv., 489 U.S. 656 (1989) (drug testing for safety-sensitive positions may be reasonable without probable cause or individualized suspicion)
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (protection against coerced statements; Garrity not applicable to non-testimonial samples)
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 (1988) (constructive-discharge standards under Arkansas law)