Those who argue that privacy and search-and-seizure mandates make the drug testing of employees unconstitutional ignore the well-established distinction between 'criminal searches' (which require individualized probable cause) and 'facilitative searches' (which do not). In facilitative searches, such as fire or safety inspections, detecting specific violations is secondary, as the aim is to correct problems rather than dispense criminal punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly sanctioned facilitative searches, even in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that a specific violation has occurred. A warrant may be required for a facilitative search, however, so as to ensure that the proposed search complies with a reasonable administrative plan based on neutral criteria. Thus, governmental drug testing can be constitutional, even if the urinalyses are intrusive and even in the absence of reasonable suspicion, so long as the government first seeks a warrant by showing a reasonable need for such searches and uses a plan that does not unfairly discriminate. If a drug-test result is used to discipline or dismiss workers, certain due process provisions must be followed. These include guarantees that an initial positive test will be repeated using a more accurate test and that a hearing will be afforded workers before a final adverse determination is made. 15 footnotes.