Brooke Wallace

Konicki 12/2/13

The Adam Linn Regional High School Districts drug screening policy for students in extra curricular activities has sparked debate both in favor of the policy and against it. There are many court cases that support both sides of this argument.

The argument that random drug and alcohol testing for students involved in extra curricular activities has backing for both sides. Supporters believe that a substance-testing policy deters drug use, gives students a reason to say no, and identifies students so they may be referred to treatment.

According to a New York Times Upfront article, Should Schools Do Random Drug Testing, over the past twelve years, teen drug use has declined 23 percent, with 840,000 fewer students using illegal drugs today than in 2001. Therefore many believe that student drug testing programs work by dissuading students from substance use. In addition, random testing gives many students who are on the fence, the incentive to say no. Lastly students identified from these programs can start early intervention.

To support this stance, one of the strongest court cases is the Board of Education v. Earls, 122 S.Ct. 2559 (2002): The Supreme Court held constitutional an Oklahoma school policy of randomly drug testing students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities. Those in support feel the policy is "a reasonably effective means of addressing the school

district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use." In addition to the BOE v. Earls court case, another supporting case is, Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995): A divided Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school district policy which required students to consent to random drug testing as a condition for participation in interscholastic athletics. The Court held that the drug policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment given such factors as: the athletes' relatively low expectation of privacy, and that the tests were "directed more narrowly to drug use by athletes, where the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user or those with whom he is playing his sport is particularly high."

To counteract this argument, many cases also support that this policy invades students fourth amendment rights to privacy. In addition, those against random drug testing feel the cost exceeds the amount of deterrence, and that the populations being tested are those less likely to use drugs.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental guarantee of the Constitution. Random student drug testing, which forces individuals to prove their innocence without suspicion of guilt, is in direct conflict with these constitutional principles. Furthermore, the amount of prevention drug testing may promote does not justify the cost. New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association drug tests about 500 students yearly costing around $100,000. In fact, Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas combined

costs to test students for substance abuse exceed $300,000 annually and have resulted in a less than 1 percent positive result in students drug tests. As well, a 2003 University of Michigan study found no significant difference in drug use in schools with screening policies compared to schools without. Lastly, studies reinforce that the largest populations of drug users are those not involved in school activities. Therefore the schools are unfairly targeting the wrong student population.

Both sides of this argument have both case law and studies to support it. However my constitutional stance on the legality of the random drug testing policy is that it infringes upon the fourth amendments rights of students.

The fourth amendment protects, The 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.

As a primary argument as to whether students have constitutional rights in school an important case is Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969): In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights at

the schoolhouse gate." That case is in fact one of the strongest arguments against random testing, supporting fourth amendment rights of students in school. This ruling reinforces that students still have the right to privacy in school and school related events. Many still argue that the fourth amendment doesnt apply because students are not being searched. However, the following case says otherwise. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989): The Supreme Court held that a suspicionless drug testing program is an intrusion of privacy during collection of sample and during sample testing. Furthermore it states that collection and testing of urine constitutes a search and is subject to the demands of the fourth amendment. Lastly, the following lower court case reinforces the unconstitutionality of this policy and supports further case law. In Brooks v. East Chambers Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist, 730 F. Supp. 759 (S.D. Tex. 1989), aff'd, 930 F. 2d 915 (5th Cir. 1991): The Fifth Circuit ruled unconstitutional the suspicionless drug testing of students wishing to participate in extracurricular activities. In its decision, the court decided that the school's motives for its policy did not meet "the compelling need criteria necessary to undertake a search without reasonable suspicion. The court additionally stated that drug testing was intrusive, that there was no evidence of drug problem or greater safety risk among those subject to the test, and that the policy was not likely to accomplish its ostensible goals." The previous court cases in addition to studies such as the 2007 Division of Health Promotion and Sports Medicine Study conducted by Linn Goldberg at the Oregon Health and Science University help strengthen the

opposition to random student drug testing. Studies such as these found that athletes at schools with drug testing had no real difference in alcohol or drug consumption compared to schools without testing policies. To conclude, random drug testing of students in extra curricular activities in unconstitutional because it is an invasion of our fourth amendment rights. Students maintain their individual rights at school and are to be innocent until proven guilty. This policy is illegal in its search and presumes students may be guilty until proven innocent.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"The Official Web Site for The State of New Jersey." The Official Web Site for The State of New Jersey. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.

"CBS Philly." CBS Philly. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

"TEACHERS." Scholastic Teachers. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.

"Everyday Life." - Global Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.

"Gateway Foundation Alcohol & Drug Treatment." Yahoo Local. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

Press, The Associated. "Drug Test for High School Athletes Fuel Debated in a Row." The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Dec. 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Johnston_sdt_study.pdf>.