Drug testing in public schools is an issue that the courts have had the main role in regulating. The legislative and executive branches don’t give much direction on this issue, which leaves it up to the courts to decide. The issue of public college drug testing is one that has not received much attention because no public college has implemented a drug testing program for students that were not athletes. Linn State Technical College (LSTC), a small college in rural Missouri, broke this precedent and made headlines this year when it implemented a mandatory drug testing program for all students. The program was implimented to ensure the safety of students that will be working with heavy machinery. With dangerous activities like aircraft maintenance, heavy engine repair and nuclear technology, the students’ safety is at risk if they are using one of the eight drugs tested for (Williams). However, this has caused concern in many that such a widespread drug testing program is an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Specifically, because the college is publicly funded and must uphold the constitution, some argue that it is a violation of the fourth amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (Salter). Though courts have allowed public school drug testing, blanket suspicionless drug testing at a public college is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment and goes beyond the precedent set by previous drug testing cases. The first reason that blanket drug testing at a public college is unconstitutional is because it violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” search and seizure. It states, “The right of the people ... ... middle of paper ... .../ICS/Drug_Screening.jnz>. Lawler, Jennifer. Drug Testing in Schools: a Pro/con Issue. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2000. Print. Salter, Jim. "Linn State Technical College Drug Tests Halted By Judge." Huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. "Student Drug Testing: Relevant Case Law." ACLU.com. American Civil LIberties Union of Eastern Missouri, 21 Oct. 2002. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist. United States District Court. 1 Mar. 2001. Print. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton. Supreme Court. 26 June 1995. Print. Williams, Timothy. "At One College, a Fight Over Required Drug Tests." New York Times 10 Oct. 2011. Print. Mapp v. Ohio. Supreme Court. 19 June 1961. MAPP V. OHIO, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Web. 10 Dec. 2011. .
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society, in particular with regard to drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injuries.
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.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
"The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net." Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net. Web. 09 Aug. 2010. .
Two sources that prove that drug testing in the U.S is unfair and unjust are Nickel and
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States.
Spaeth, Harold J. and Edward Conrad Smith. The Constitution of the United States, 13th ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991 (paper). ISBN 0064671054.
October 5, 2013 in Cornell Law. CRS/LII Annotated Constitution of the United States. Cornell University Law School, Inc. 2013. The. Web. The Web.
The largest and first assault on the rights of students to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures occurred in the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In 1980 at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J. a few girls were caught smoking in the bathroom. After being brought to the principal's office one of the girls, T.L.O., denied that she had been smoking. The principal then searched her purse looking for cigarettes. After finding a pack of cigarettes the search continued until the principal discovered evidence of drug dealing. This evidence was used to prosecute T.L.O. and ultimately she received a year of p...
Black, Hugo. 1960. “The Bill of Rights,” Reprinted from New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960 Online: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/gertz/hugoblack.htm. Downloaded 6/12/01
The act of search and seizure is derived from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is focused on privacy. Its sole purpose is to protect against unreasonable search and seizures performed by State and/or Federal authorities. Most search and seizures are performed by law enforcement officials. There are certain circumstances in which search and seizures are considered reasonable. They can include but not limited to, owner consent, an issued warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion and reasonable expectation of privacy. With any of these circumstances an officer has the right to conduct a search of the suspect. A search and seizure is only to be considered unlawful when an individual’s personal property i.e., their house or car is searched or breached without owner consent. Consent is the permission granted for a search to given in one’s personal property. Otherwise, a warrant must be issued for the conducted search in order for evidence to be admitted lawfully. If...
It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2). The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut, outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone.
The increasing amount of public school students selling, using, or being offered illegal drugs on school property has not only parents greatly concerned but school administrators and educators as well. This matter has caught the attention of the United State Supreme Court, which held “deterring drug use by school children is an important-indeed, perhaps compelling interest of the government.” Although there is a common agreement for the need to provide a drug free learning environments for our students, there is much debate with regard to the procedures and measures to be taken before infringing on the students’ Fourth Amendment right. In efforts to safeguard our students, many states have implemented the use of strip searches. The idea of having young adolescents disrobing on school grounds shocks the conscience of many and acts as a red flag for the intrusion on students’ constitutional rights. In fact, a Federal District Court has characterized a strip search as “visual rape.” So, where do we draw the line between insuring the safety of our students and in the same turn not going as far as stripping them of their Fourth Amendment right?
...ey to getting a good job, but high school students can’t get their education if they are caught up in doing drugs. Over thirty percent of dropouts in the United States are because of drugs. The thirty percent of drug addict dropouts may never find a job. Thats why it is important for high school drug testing to be enforced among all students. High school drug testing would allow early notice of drug use and allow the school to steer the student into the right path towards success. The drug tests will give students confidence and another reason to say “No” when being peer pressured into trying drugs. Many would argue that drug testings invade their privacy, but with drug usage being at an all time high who can we count on? High schools are made to prepare students for their future, and in order to make the students successful we must allow high school drug testings.
Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience to support random and mandatory drug testing in schools and to encourage my audience to maintain a drug-free environment in school