Reasonable Suspicion Testing: How to Document It So It Holds Up

I spent years as a criminal defense legal assistant before I started running a drug testing lab, and if there’s one thing that career taught me, it’s this: the moment something goes wrong, the only thing that matters is what’s written down. Not what you remember. Not what you meant. What you wrote, when you wrote it, and how specific it was.

So when I talk to employers about reasonable suspicion testing, I’m not just talking as someone who runs a testing franchise. I’m talking as someone who has seen, up close, what happens when documentation is thin — and what happens when it isn’t.

Reasonable suspicion testing is one of the most useful tools Arizona employers have under the Drug Testing of Employees Act (A.R.S. § 23-493.04). It lets you test an employee mid-shift, not just at hiring or randomly, when you have a genuine, observable basis to believe drug or alcohol use is affecting their job performance or the work environment.

It’s also the category I get the most nervous questions about. And in my experience, it’s almost never challenged on whether the test itself was fair. It’s challenged on whether the employer can prove what they actually saw.

What “reasonable suspicion” actually means

This is the part I really want employers to sit with: it’s not a hunch. It’s not “he seemed off” relayed secondhand from someone who wasn’t even sure what they saw. From my time in defense work, I can tell you that’s exactly the kind of testimony that falls apart under cross-examination. Reasonable suspicion has to be specific, observable behavior — the kind a reasonable person in your position would notice and find concerning. That includes things like:

• Slurred speech or noticeably altered speech patterns
• Unsteady movement, poor coordination, or stumbling
• Dilated or bloodshot eyes
• A detectable odor associated with drug or alcohol use
• Sudden, uncharacteristic irritability, argumentativeness, or confusion
• Drowsiness, nodding off, or unresponsiveness on the job

One of these, witnessed directly by a supervisor, can be enough. I want to underline witnessed — not rumored, not reported by a coworker who didn’t want to get involved, not assumed because someone seemed “different” without anyone being able to say how.

Why documentation is the whole ballgame

Here’s the part I tell every client, sometimes more than once: the testing itself is the easy part. What actually protects you — or exposes you — is the paper trail you create before the swab or cup ever comes out.

If an employee later disputes the test, files for unemployment, or brings in an attorney, the question isn’t “was this person actually impaired?” It’s “did the employer have a reasonable, well-documented basis for believing so, in the moment, based on specific observations?” I watched plenty of cases turn on exactly that distinction. Vague memories reconstructed after the fact don’t hold up. Contemporaneous, specific, witnessed documentation does.

What I tell employers to put in the record

1. Date, time, and location of the observation — not “earlier today,” but the actual timestamp.
2. Specific behaviors observed, in plain, factual language. Not “seemed impaired” — instead, “slurred words during conversation, stumbled twice walking to the breakroom, strong odor of alcohol on breath.”
3. Who observed it. Ideally two trained supervisors independently corroborate the same observations. One observer is workable; two are far stronger.
4. What was said to the employee, and how they responded.
5. The decision to test, and the time the employee was informed and transported or sent for testing — delay matters, since impairment evidence fades.
6. Chain-of-custody documentation for the sample itself, separate from the behavioral observation form.

That last one is where I come in personally. Same-day collection, proper chain-of-custody paperwork, no appointment necessary — once you’ve made the call to test, I make sure the test itself can’t be the weak link in your case.

The mistake I see most often

Employers train supervisors on what to look for, then forget to train them on what to write down. A supervisor who can spot impairment but writes “I think Mike was high” instead of describing the actual behavior has handed a plaintiff’s attorney a gift — I promise you, I’ve read that file before, just from the other side of the table. Specific, factual, behavior-based documentation, completed immediately and not from memory the next day, is what separates a defensible decision from a guess that happened to be right.

Good intentions are not a defense. Documentation is.

Bottom line

Reasonable suspicion testing is legal, useful, and sometimes necessary. It’s also the category most likely to end up scrutinized after the fact, and I’d rather you hear that from me now than learn it the hard way later. If you want a quick reference checklist for your supervisors or just want to talk through how your current documentation process holds up, call me directly. Same-day testing, full chain-of-custody, and one point of contact who already knows your account — no surprises, no guessing.

FAQ: Reasonable Suspicion Testing

What exactly qualifies as “reasonable suspicion” in Arizona?

Specific, observable behavior witnessed by a supervisor — things like slurred speech, unsteady movement, a detectable odor, sudden irritability, or visible drowsiness. A vague feeling or secondhand rumor doesn’t meet the standard. It needs to be something a reasonable person would notice and find concerning.

Do I need two supervisors to witness the behavior, or is one enough?

One trained observer is workable under Arizona law, but two independent observers corroborating the same behavior makes your documentation significantly stronger if the decision is ever challenged.

What happens if I don’t document the observation well?

You’re still allowed to test, but if the employee disputes it later — through an unemployment claim, a wrongful termination claim, or an attorney — weak documentation makes it much harder to show you had a reasonable basis for testing in the moment.

How quickly do I need to act once I observe the behavior?

As soon as practicable. Delay matters because impairment evidence fades, and a long gap between observation and testing weakens your case that the suspicion was timely and genuine.

Can an employee refuse a reasonable suspicion test?

Yes, but refusal is generally treated as a policy violation in itself and can be grounds for discipline or termination, as long as your written policy says so and was properly communicated.