More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of substance use on adolescents
The effects of drug abuse on youth
Effects of drug abuse among adolescents
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes. Between 1985 and 1989 the Vernonia School District began to see a marked increase in disciplinary problems, drug use by students, athletic injuries, use of drugs by athletes and a student body preoccupation with the drug culture. The school district adopted a policy requiring students who participated in interscholastic athletics to sign a consent of both routine and random drug testing. In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, then a seventh-grader, signed up to play football at one of the District's grade schools. He was denied participation because he and his parents refused to sign the testing consent forms. The Actons filled suit on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The federal district court ruled in the school district's favor, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that although the district had laid the foundation for a drug policy, the interest was not so compelling as to justify a random testing program. The time between the 1980's and 1990's America saw a dramatic increase in drug use which spread through nearly every community in the nation. Drugs had not previously been a major problem in Vernonia schools. In the mid-to-late 1980's, however, teachers and administrators observed an increase in drug use. Students began to speak out about their attraction to the drug culture, and boasted that there was nothing the school could do about it. The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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.
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
The federal court rejected dismissed Franklin’s case, because Title IX did not allow for monetary relief, The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the court’s
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The U.S. Supreme Court Graham v. Connor was about a man named Mr. Graham, who was a diabetic. He felt like he was about to have a diabetic attack because his blood sugar was too low. Mr. Graham decided to contact his friend Berry over the phone to ask if he could drive him to the convenience store to buy some orange juice. He felt that if he drank some orange juice that it would mitigate the reaction. Subsequently, Graham and Berry came into view of the convenience store, and Graham hastily got out of the car. Sadly there was a long queue in the checkout line. Graham worried that he would get worse and since he couldn’t wait that long, he decided to go back to the car. He told Berry to take him to another acquaintance’s home to see if he could get some orange juice to ease the insulin. Waiting casually outside of the convenient store was Officer Conner. Conner had observed Graham go in and out of the store and sensed that something was not quite right. The...
The rationale behind this is that family courts follow the “the golden rule” in which “the court must always act in the best interest of the child or children in a case” (Boyd Law). Further rationalizations behind this are the rights granted by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment in which governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law; that includes both Michelle Dorsey and Tyler Dorsey. If Tyler’s mother is incapable of being a positive parent, creating his chronic delinquency as a result, one may argue that he is being deprived of life and liberty, which may introduce a compelling enough government interest in order to rationalize Michelle Dorsey’s drug test. Dorsey might argue that her own liberty was being infringed upon as she was not formally convicted of a crime. This argument becomes invalid in light of Dorsey’s testimony and the concept of suspicion and probable cause, which will be discussed
In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.
The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
“A medical dictionary defines a drug as ‘any substance that when taken into the living organism may modify one or more of its functions’” (Newton 12). However, when speaking of drug testing for abuse a person is usually thinking about illegal drugs or drugs that can alter athletic performance in sporting events. Mandatory drug testing was not allowed in public schools until June 2002 when the Supreme Court allowed for public schools to do random drug testing (Carroll 23). This decision allowed for drug testing in all schools throughout the United States not just for athletes but also students who are in any activities within the school, for example clubs and competitive events (Carroll 23). Even though drug testing is now allowed by the Supreme Court many schools do not yet have mandatory drug test policies. Mandatory drug testing for high school athletes should be required because it decreases drug use in schools, is relatively inexpensive, and can prevent drug use and or abuse that can lead to a lifelong addiction.
Many schools across the country have brought attention to the idea of drug testing students. The interest in student drug testing may be the result of the recent increase of drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents and community’s members are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that it would be a violation of students’ rights, trust, and view it as not effective. Although some benefits may come from drug testing students in public schools, those benefits do not outweigh the problems that result in mandating drug testing.