ROSS, Circuit Judge.
This is a class action challenging the constitutionality of an Iowa Department of Corrections policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This policy subjects the correctional institution employees to searches of their vehicles and of their persons, including urine, blood, or breath testing, upon the request of Department officials. The named plaintiffs are Alan McDonell, Lee Curran, and Sally Phipps. The certified class consists of all individuals employed by the Iowa Department of Corrections at its various institutions who are covered by the Department’s search policy.
The district court1 enjoined Department of Corrections officials and their agents from enforcing this search policy except in certain limited circumstances, unless the search is based upon a reasonable suspicion. We affirm the district court’s order as herein modified.
I. Facts
Plaintiff McDonell was employed as a correctional officer first at the Men’s Reformatory at Anamosa (Anamosa) and later at another correctional institution. Plaintiffs Curran and Phipps, at all times material to this action, were employed at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women at Mitchellville (Mitchellville).
Defendant Hunter is the Superintendent and chief executive officer of Mitchellville. Defendant Sebek is the Security Director of Mitchellville, and is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Department’s policy. Defendant Behrends is the Acting Deputy Warden of Anamosa, and is responsible for the implementation of the Department’s policy.2 Defendant Farrier is Director and chief administrative officer of the Iowa Department of Corrections, and is responsible for the supervision and operations of Anamosa, Mitchellville, and other correctional institutions.
When McDonell was employed at Anamosa in 1979, he signed a consent to search form.3 In January 1984 the supervisory personnel at Anamosa requested McDonell to undergo urinalysis because he had been seen with individuals who were being investigated for possible drug-related activities. McDonell refused and as a result his employment was terminated. Shortly thereafter he was reinstated with loss of ten [1305] days’ pay and was transferred to another institution.
In August of 1983, employees at Mitchellville were presented a search consent form4 to sign. Plaintiffs Curran and Phipps refused to sign. While there was disputed evidence that these employees were told that if they did not sign, they would not receive their paychecks, they did in fact receive paychecks and they have not been discharged or disciplined for refusing to sign.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the class5 they represented, claiming the policy6 violates the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and plaintiffs’ constitutional right to privacy.
A preliminary injunction was issued in February 1984. On appeal it was affirmed. McDonell v. Hunter, 746 F.2d 785, 787 (8th Cir.1984). In July 1985, the district court issued its final order 612 F.Supp. 1122. The district court held that searches of correctional employees, including urinalyses, and of their vehicles may be made only on the basis of reasonable suspicion, with certain specified exceptions.7 The district court found that the policy challenged here was designed to serve security requirements at the state’s correctional facilities, but that the employees had legitimate, although diminished, expectations of privacy while in the correctional institution. The court balanced the state’s interest in security against the infringement upon the individual employee’s right to privacy and determined that reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, was the appropriate standard for conducting strip searches and urinalyses of employees. The district court order allows vehicle searches within the confines of the institution to be conducted uniformly or by systematic random selection. Searches of employees’ vehicles within the institution’s confines, other than uniformly or by systematic random selection were permitted only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion.
II. Searches
The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:
[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The basic purpose of the fourth amendment, which is enforceable against the states through the fourteenth amendment, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 334, 105 S.Ct. 733, 739-40, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), is “to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials,” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1730, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 91967). The fourth amendment imposes a “standard of ‘reasonableness’ upon the exercise of discretion by government officials.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653-54, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1395-96, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). “The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1884, 60 [1306] L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). See also Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 644, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2608, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983); Delaware v. Prouse, supra, 440 U.S. at 654, 99 S.Ct. at 1396.
A. Strip Body Searches
Defendants argue that to maintain security and intercept contraband it is necessary that they be allowed to request strip searches of corrections officers based on mere suspicion. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have no reasonable expectations of privacy within the institutions in light of their signing consent forms.
Correctional institutions are unique places “fraught with serious security dangers.” Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. at 1884. Within the walls of the correctional institution, “a central objective of prison administrators is to safeguard institutional security.” Hunter v. Auger, 672 F.2d 668, 674 (8th Cir.1982). To achieve this goal prison administrators have the responsibility “to intercept and exclude by all reasonable means all contraband smuggled into the facility.” Id.
In analyzing the intrusion on the individual’s fourth amendment interests, there must be a legitimate expectation of privacy. To determine if an individual’s expectation of privacy is legitimate, there must be both an actual subjective expectation and, even more importantly, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525 n. 7, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3199-3200 n. 7, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), that expectation must be one which society will accept as reasonable.8 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 516, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).
While correction officers retain certain expectations of privacy, it is clear that, based upon their place of employment, their subjective expectations of privacy are diminished while they are within the confines of the prison. Security & Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82 v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 202 (2d Cir.1984). We believe that society is prepared to accept this expectation of privacy as reasonable although diminished “in light of the difficult burdens of maintaining safety, order and security that our society imposes on those who staff our prisons.” Id.
The Supreme Court has held that warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz, supra, 389 U.S. at 357, 88 S.Ct. at 514. Exceptions have been made “where a legitimate governmental purpose makes the intrusion into privacy reasonable.” Carey, supra, 737 F.2d at 203.
In light of the legitimate governmental interest in maintaining security at correctional institutions, it is our view, as it is that of the Second Circuit, that a reasonable suspicion standard should be adopted for strip searches of correction officers while working in correctional facilities. Id. at 204. As this court stated in Hunter v. Auger, supra, “[w]e believe that this standard is flexible enough to afford the full measure of fourth amendment protection without posing an insuperable barrier to the exercise of all search and seizure powers.” Hunter v. Auger, supra, 672 F.2d at 674.
A reasonable suspicion standard has been upheld as the appropriate standard for conducting body searches of (1) prison visitors: Thome v. Jones, 765 F.2d 1270, 1277 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1199, 89 L.Ed.2d 313 (1986); Hunter v. Auger, supra, 672 F.2d at 674; (2) persons at the country’s borders: United States v. Ogberaha, 771 F.2d 655, 658 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 887, 88 L.Ed.2d 922 (1986); United States v. Asbury, 586 F.2d 973, 975-76 (2d Cir.1978); United States v. Afanador, 567 F.2d 1325, 1328 (5th Cir.1978); (3) arrestees: Jones v. Edwards, 770 F.2d 739, [1307]*1307741 (8th Cir.1985) (strip search conducted following arrest for animal leash law violation); Giles v. Ackerman, 746 F.2d 614, 615 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1053, 105 S.Ct. 2114, 85 L.Ed.2d 479 (1985) (strip search of one arrested for minor traffic offenses); Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1273 (7th Cir.1983) (strip search of women arrested for misdemeanor offenses, done while women were awaiting arrival of bail money); and (4) prison guards: Security & Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82 v. Carey, supra, 737 F.2d at 203-04; accord Armstrong v. New York State Commissioner of Corrections, 545 F.Supp. 728, 731 (N.D.N.Y.1982) (requiring “articulable facts” supporting belief that employee was concealing contraband on his person; cf. Gettleman v. Werner, 377 F.Supp. 445, 452 (W.D.Pa.1974) (reasonable suspicion found, but a federal court should “be reluctant to intervene” in prison administration matters).
The reasonable suspicion standard requires officials to base strip searches on specific objective facts and rational inferences they are entitled to, draw from those facts in light of their experience. It requires individualized suspicion specifically directed to the person who is targeted for the strip search. Hunter v. Auger, supra, 672 F.2d at 674-75. Without reasonable, articulable grounds to suspect an individual employee of secreting contraband on his person, a strip search of that employee is unreasonable under the fourth amendment. We thus affirm the district court's order regarding strip searches of correctional facility employees.
B. Urinalysis
Urinalysis has been determined to be a search and seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment. Capua v. City of Plainfield, 643 F.Supp. 1507, 1513 (D.N.J.1986); Jones v. McKenzie, 628 F.Supp. 1500, 1508-09 (D.D.C.1986); Allen v. City of Marietta, 601 F.Supp. 482, 488-89 (N.D.Ga.1985); Storms v. Coughlin, 600 F.Supp. 1214, 1217 (S.D.N.Y.1984); In re Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education, 119 A.D.2d 35, 505 N.Y.S.2d 888, 889 (1986); City of Palm Bay v. Bauman, 475 So.2d 1322, 1325-27 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985); cf. Everett v. Napper, 632 F.Supp. 1481, 1484 (N.D.Ga.1986) (no search occurred and there was no fourth amendment violation where employee refused to take urinalysis test). In addition, the Third Circuit has implicitly held that the fourth amendment applies to urinalysis. Shoemaker v. Handel, 795 F.2d 1136, 1142 (3d Cir.1986).
In Allen v. City of Marietta, supra, and Capua, supra, the courts compared urine testing to the involuntary taking of a blood sample. “Though urine, unlike blood, is routinely discharged from the body so that no actual [physical] intrusion is required for its collection,” both can be “analyzed in a medical laboratory to discover numerous physiological facts about the person from whom it came.” Capua, supra, 643 F.Supp. at 1513. The Supreme Court has held that the involuntary administration of a blood test “plainly involves” the fourth amendment, which provides that “ ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons * * * shall not be violated.’ ” (Emphasis added). Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1834, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (quoting the fourth amendment in part). We agree with those courts which have held that urinalysis is a search and seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Having determined that urinalysis is a search and seizure, we look to a balancing of “the need to search against the invasion which the search entails.” Camara, supra, 387 U.S. at 537, 87 S.Ct. at 1735. Iowa Department of Corrections officials assert a strong need to see that prison guards are not working while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Officials argue that prison security demands that those who have contact with inmates must be alert at all times. They also urge that the use of drugs by a correction officer is some positive indication that such officer [1308] may bring drugs into the prison for the use of the inmate.
Urinalysis properly administered is not as intrusive as a strip search or a blood test. While the prison officials have the same legitimate interest in maintaining prison security discussed supra, the infringement upon the privacy interest of correctional institution employees, already diminished, is lessened. Officials have a legitimate interest in assuring that the activities of those employees who come into daily contact with inmates are not inhibited by drugs or alcohol and are fully capable of performing their duties.
In Shoemaker v. Handel, supra, the Third Circuit upheld random selection by lot for urine testing of jockeys as well as daily breathalyzer testing. The court said the state had a “strong interest in assuring the public of the integrity of the persons engaged in the horse racing industry.” Shoemaker v. Handel, supra, 795 F.2d at 1142. In approving this administrative search exception to the warrant requirement, the court looked first to a strong state interest in conducting an unannounced search and second, to a reduction in the justifiable privacy expectation of the subject of the search. Id. We believe the state’s interest in safeguarding the security of its correctional institutions is at least as strong as its interest in safeguarding the integrity of, and the public confidence in, the horse racing industry. On December 1, 1986, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 577, 93 L.Ed.2d 580.
Warrantless searches of government employees have been found reasonable where the searches were directly relevant to the employee’s performance of his duties and the government’s performance of its duties. See United States v. Blok, 188 F.2d 1019, 1021 (D.C.Cir.1951); Allen v. City of Marietta, supra, 601 F.Supp. at 489-90, and cases cited therein. We agree with the Allen court that urinalyses are not unreasonable when conducted for the purpose of determining whether corrections employees are using or abusing drugs which would affect their ability to safely perform their work within the prison, “a unique place fraught with serious security dangers.” Bell v. Wolfish, supra,- 441 U.S. at 559, 99 S.Ct. at 1884. In our opinion the use of drugs by employees who come into contact with the inmates in medium or maximum security facilities on a regular day-to-day basis poses a real threat to the security of the prison. The only way this can be controlled in a satisfactory manner is to permit limited uniform and random testing. The least intrusive method of doing so is through use of urinalyses. In our opinion it is also logical to assume that employees who use the drugs, and who come into regular contact with the prisoners, are more likely to supply drugs to the inmates, although the trial court did not agree with this observation.
Because the institutional interest in prison security is a central one, because urinalyses are not nearly so intrusive as body searches, Shoemaker v. Handel, 608 F.Supp. 1151, 1158 (D.C.N.J.1985), aff'd, 795 F.2d 1136 (3d Cir.1986), and because this limited intrusion into the guards’ expectation of privacy is, we believe, one which society will accept as reasonable, we modify the district court’s order and hold that urinalyses may be performed uniformly or by systematic random selection of those employees who have regular contact with the prisoners on a day-to-day basis in medium or maximum security prisons. Selection must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.
Urinalysis testing within the institution’s confines, other than uniformly or by systematic random selection of those employees so designated, may be made only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion, based on specific objective facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience that the employee is then under the influence of drugs or alcohol or that the employee has used a controlled substance within the twenty-four hour period prior to the required test. The demand for a urine, blood, or breath speci[1309] men should be made only on the express authority of the highest officer present in the institution, and the specific, objective facts should be disclosed to the employee at the time the demand is made. Strict guidelines should be established and followed to assure confidentiality of the results of urinalysis testing. Whether the testing is on the limited random basis approved above or on the basis of reasonable suspicion, the equipment and procedure to be used must provide sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to permit the authorities to accurately determine the presence or absence of both drugs and alcohol in the urine. The equipment and procedure to be used shall conform to those described and approved by this court in Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir.1986).
The trial court limited the right to test on reasonable suspicion to those employees who are “then under the influence of alcoholic beverages or controlled substances.” We do not agree with this limitation and hold that urinalyses testing should also be permitted where there is a reasonable suspicion (as defined herein) that controlled substances have been used within the twenty-four hour period prior to the required test.
There was evidence that employees may have been asked to strip before giving a urine specimen, and there was some evidence submitted as to the reason for this requirement but it was not conclusive. We hold that the search policy should not require an employee to strip in connection with giving a urine or blood specimen. Other less intrusive measures can be taken to insure the validity of the specimen. We affirm the district court’s order as to urine, blood, or breath specimens with the modifications set forth above.
C. Vehicle Searches
The motor vehicle parking lot for employees at Mitchellville is within the area where inmates are confined. The parking lots at other correctional facilities are on property outside the area within which inmates are confined. Defendants argue that they have a significant interest in assuring that inmates do not have access to contraband hidden in vehicles.
The search of a vehicle is much less intrusive than a search of one’s person. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 279, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2542-43, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring). Cases involving vehicle searches have recognized that an individual’s expectation of privacy in his vehicle is less than in other property. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2484, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); United States v. Michael, 645 F.2d 252, 257 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 489, 70 L.Ed.2d 257 (1981). Likewise, any expecta tion of privacy as to packages or containers within a vehicle is diminished. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820 n. 26, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2170, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). By the same balancing of individual rights against the interests of the correctional institution in maintaining security, we find that it is not unreasonable to search vehicles that are parked within the institution’s confines where they are accessible to inmates. Such searches may be conducted without cause but must be done uniformly or by systematic random selection of employees whose vehicles are to be searched. It also is not unreasonable to search on a random basis, as described supra, employees’ vehicles parked outside the institution’s confines if it can be shown that inmates have unsupervised access to those vehicles. Any other vehicle search may be made only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion, based on specific objective facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience, that the vehicle to be searched contains contraband. We believe this is reasonable in light of Hudson v. Palmer, supra, in which the Supreme Court granted prison officials “unfettered access” to prisoners’ cells as places where inmates can conceal contraband. Hudson v. Palmer, supra, 468 U.S. at 527, 104 S.Ct. at 3200. We affirm the district court’s order as to vehicle searches with the above modifications.
[1310] III. Consent Forms
Defendants argue that employees who signed consent forms have no legitimate expectation of privacy on correctional institution property.
If a search is unreasonable, a government employer cannot require that its employees consent to that search as a condition of employment. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734-35, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 593-94, 46 S.Ct. 605, 607, 70 L.Ed. 1101 (1926). Armstrong v. New York State Commissioner of Corrections, supra, 545 F.Supp. at 731. A legal search conducted pursuant to voluntary consent is not unreasonable and does not violate the fourth amendment. Consent must be given voluntarily and without coercion determined from the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-48, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Oyekan, 786 F.2d 832, 838 (8th Cir.1986). The district court here specifically made no finding as to the voluntariness of the signing of the consent forms. The district court did hold that “[ajdvance consent to future unreasonable searches is not a reasonable condition of employment.” McDonell v. Hunter, 612 F.Supp. 1122, 1131 (S.D.Ia.1985). We agree. The state may only use a consent form which delineates the rights of the employees consistent with the views of this opinion and which does not require the waiver of any of those rights.
For the above reasons, the district court’s order is affirmed as modified.