Klarinet Archive - Posting 001044.txt from 2002/06

From: "James Hobby" <jhobby@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:48:44 -0400

Just for clarity sake, this is the abstract from the USSC opinion in Board
of Ed, et al. vs. Earls, et al. Anyone who wants to read the whole opinion,
I've put the direct link at the bottom of this email. (FWIW, I personally
agree with the 10th Circuit. I think it is a violation of the Fourth
Amendment and a gross violation of privacy to act without any probable
cause. The idea that because students participate in extracurricular
activities, they have a lower expectation of privacy than other students is
offensive. And at least part of the Justices don't agree, since it's a 5:4
split, so there's a chance that another opinion could overturn this one.)

Jim Hobby

===================================
"The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) adopted by the
Tecumseh, Oklahoma, School District (School District) requires all middle
and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order
to participate in any extracurricular activity. In practice, the Policy has
been applied only to competitive extracurricular activities sanctioned by
the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Respondent
high school students and their parents brought this 42 U.S. C. §1983 action
for equitable relief, alleging that the Policy violates the Fourth
Amendment. Applying Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, in
which this Court upheld the suspicionless drug testing of school athletes,
the District Court granted the School District summary judgment. The Tenth
Circuit reversed, holding that the Policy violated the Fourth Amendment. It
concluded that before imposing a suspicionless drug testing program a school
must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient
number of those tested, such that testing that group will actually redress
its drug problem. The court then held that the School District had failed to
demonstrate such a problem among Tecumseh students participating in
competitive extracurricular activities."

"Held: Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School
District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its
schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 4-14"

===================================

The full opinion at:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-332.ZS.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------